Hacker News Reader

Comment by imwillofficial | Hacker News Reader

Facebook allowing targeted calls for violence to one side of a conflict only had a lot to do with this decision.

Unfortunately, regardless of any philosophy on morality, it is simply unrealistic to expect the citizens of a nation being invaded - a word applicable here without even the merest qualification - to not call for the violent repulsion of the invader, loudly and in great numbers, regardless of how "good" or "bad" the invader's justification is.

Edit: To reconnect my point to the topic - the weight of millions of simultaneous lamentations under such a real, physical attack is simply heavier than the weight of a content policy of a media designed for people to talk to each other. It would be difficult, both morally and practically, to not make an exception in this case. Content policies can not be immutable, and should not be.

Then the citizens of Donetsk should be able to call for violence against the Ukranians invading their country.

How can Ukraine invade their own country?

Let me know when the Ukranian army crosses the frontier of the breakaway region. Until then, "the Ukranians invading their country" is rhetoric that is unconnected to reality.

Okay, they've just been shelling it for the last 8 years. That's totally fine until someone puts a foot over.

I think you're letting emotions migrate the topic. The implication is not that it is "fine". War is never "fine", no matter how "just". The question is that of when it becomes impossible or undesirable to police "calls for violence", which is very broad. Ownership of that area is much more controversial than the ownership of Ukraine, and the actions taken are much less dramatic. I.e. attempting to prevent separatism is much less black and white than responding to a full blown foreign invasion. However, I understand there are people who disagree with what I think is "obvious".

Your premise isn't really comparable, not least due to its unrealism. However, generically, if Ukraine invades somebody's country under similar circumstances to Russia's, then yes, absolutely.

But for some reason, ISIS accounts get banned. ISIS was the result of the de-Sunnification process of the Iraqi government and military after an invasion of Iraq on false pretenses. Shouldn't it have been unrealistic to have expectations of their behavior on these platforms?

I hope facebook's decision to allow calls for violence against the russian military makes it clear how ridiculous it is to try to define hate speech. Further, it should also be clear that what is censored on facebook will always change with the whims of facebook executives and will never be properly defined.

It is also impossible to draw a bright line on what counts as porn, but we don't throw up our hands and allow it everywhere. The implication that rules must have infinitely objective interpretation is farcical. Virtually no rules or laws meet this bar - it's unrealistic.

GTFO, there is tons of Russian propaganda on FB, including fake shit but some Russian trolls get upset when social media and moderators remove provable false things.

Are you sure you're responding to the right comment?

The OP was referring to Facebook allowing calls for violence against Russians. (Is that fake news?)

Is your argument that Facebook doing that played no part in Russia's decision?

He was upset that FB has content only in one direction, anti-Russia. I said this is not true and I am expecting a lot of ani-Russia, anti-Putin content to exist on FB, but don't pretend that this is only one sided.

Anyway , weird Putin coward and did not unplug the Internet yet, they were testing this in the past so I am wondering why still keep it, young Russian have access to the truth and this is a big danger for the war-criminal

> He was upset that FB has content only in one direction, anti-Russia.

Where did you get that? The entirety of the post I saw was:

> Facebook allowing targeted calls for violence to one side of a conflict only had a lot to do with this decision.

Can you point to the part where they get upset, or otherwise makes a value judgment at all?

> He was upset that FB has content only in one direction, anti-Russia.

What makes you think the OP is upset? It seems like a neutral argument to me. Did the OP edit their post?

I might have misinterpreted the comment, now is flagged, would be a good idea if OP learns to be more clear and what he means and maybe link to the event he is refering rather then assume everyone will understand his allusions. Someone linked something so I am reading that now.

I was exceedingly clear and neutral.

Your own emotion read into words that were not there.

I simply stated a fact and offered no judgement on the merits of the action.

OP's argument is legit: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/11/facebook-...

Did you even read beyond the headline?

“As a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine we have temporarily made allowances for forms of political expression that would normally violate our rules, like violent speech such as ‘death to the Russian invaders’. We still won’t allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians,” Meta said in a statement.

>Did you even read beyond the headline?

I am guilty, I will do better next time.

Responding to someones murderous actions is not violence- it's self defense.

That is not relevant to the OP's argument. Do you think the OP is blaming Facebook?

If somebody invades your house and abducts your family you may kill them in most juristrictions I know of.

They may not kill you.

This is not a disagreement, twist, two parties having their point of view and stuff that we have grown up with, this is an unjustified war of aggression. The only argument we should agree to hear from the Russian side is how they will disprove the accusations of a war of aggression.

Hopefully we can soon get back to behaving like civilized countries, and start the deputinization process of Russia.

You sound as confident of the facts as I did when I believed Saddam had WMDs. Sometimes your understanding of the world is incomplete.

I would encourage an open mind, lest history make a fool of you like it did me.

It's not like anyone feels bad for this decision

Are you arguing that there's moral similarity between an invading army and people who'd prefer not to be invaded, because "well, it's violence"?

Do you see where I made any argument?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com