Facebook temporarily allowing call for death

[Sucuk Ekmek]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-facebook-instagram-temporarily-allow-calls-violence-against-russians-2022-03-10/

  Don't know what to say... 

[K Ghoul]

The mask is starting to slip  

[Yarco]

32 minutes ago, A_v_E said:

personaly I see no problem in removing from function people who are against a global agenda. ( and so against love and unification )

Can you provide any sort of document or formal declaration where world governments declared that their global agenda was love and unification? I have personally never heard this.

(Not just in a baseless way where they say something that sounds nice, and then go on supporting and funding wars. After they make such a statement, I expect their actions to match their words)

Would you feel differently if the global agenda changed to something that you strongly disagreed with on a moral level? Or do you think we should always go along with the global agenda "for the greater good"?

[K Ghoul]

https://www.reuters.com/world/kremlin-says-meta-would-have-cease-work-russia-if-reuters-report-is-true-2022-03-11/
“Russia opens criminal investigation of Meta over death calls on Facebook.

LONDON, March 11 (Reuters) - Russia opened a criminal case against Facebook's parent Meta Platforms (FB.O) on Friday and moved to designate it as an "extremist organisation" after the social network changed its hate speech rules to allow users to call for violence against Russians in the context of the war with Ukraine.

"A criminal case has been initiated ... in connection with illegal calls for murder and violence against citizens of the Russian Federation by employees of the American company Meta, which owns the social networks Facebook and Instagram," Russia's Investigative Committee said.“

 

Russia is also going to ban Instagram:

“In accordance with the Federal Law ‘On Countering Extremist Activity’, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation sent an application to the court to recognize Meta Platforms Inc. as an extremist organization and ban its activities in the territory of the Russian Federation,” the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation said today.“

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/russia-instagram-ban-meta-whatsapp-b2033767.html?amp

[Dryas]

The actual headline: Facebook allows war posts urging violence against Russian invaders

From the article: "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," a Meta spokesperson said in a statement.

"We are doing this because we have observed that in this specific context, 'Russian soldiers' is being used as a proxy for the Russian military. The Hate Speech policy continues to prohibit attacks on Russians," the email stated.

Maybe it's still the wrong move but I feel this gives one a fuller picture.

Edited March 11, 2022 by Dryas

[vizual]

It seems to me that the “extremist organization” is the Russian government… You don’t get to have the moral high ground when you are slaughtering innocent people in Ukraine.

Russia can isolate themselves as much as they want from the west as they like, it will mostly hurt themselves.

[K Ghoul]

7 minutes ago, vizual said:

It seems to me that the “extremist organization” is the Russian government… You don’t get to have the moral high ground when you are slaughtering innocent people in Ukraine.

Russia can isolate themselves as much as they want from the west as they like, it will mostly hurt themselves.

You also seem to think that Taliban is an extremist organization in the context of US imposing sanctions on Afghanistan which threatens deaths of millions of civilians by starvation. Just wanted to point that out. 

[Sucuk Ekmek]

I get your criticism Facebook allows this action only for 'invaders', but anyone can be invader once you control the narrative. Maybe next invader going to be the president of America? 

[Ulax]

I don't like the move by meta (Facebook).

I get the thinking behind it. However, I think it sets an unstable precedent.

Silence on issues from meta will now become seen as more of a political statement.

[Preety_India]

I don't think it's appropriate for Facebook to do this. 

It has shades of Antifa and blm or at least reminiscent of these movements. 

Two wrongs don't make a right. 

There should be condemnation of the war and outrage

 

But calling for killing doesn't make us better than the warmongers either. They need to control such posts and remove any calls for violence. 

[vladorion]

Just a week ago they allowed praising neo-nazis. 

[Leo Gura]

That's a rather nuanced and in-touch thing for Facebook to do.

Not sure if it's needed, but at least it shows that Facebook is being nuanced and thoughtful about its policies in this case.

[Baotrader]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

That's a rather nuanced and in-touch thing for Facebook to do.

Not sure if it's needed, but at least it shows that Facebook is being nuanced and thoughtful about its policies in this case.

FB has been responsible for drowning people in dopamine that harmfully contributes to exploit mental illness and all kinds of human's shadow side: Jealousy, Anger, Sexual Abuse, Lust for Rape leading to all kinds of sickness and perversion
And now it wants to wear the moral mask facing the world. 
I don't know when people will wake up seeing true colors of Mark Zuckerberg before he does much more harm in the next decade

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Baotrader said:

FB has been responsible for drowning people in dopamine that harmfully contributes to exploit mental illness and all kinds of human's shadow side: Jealousy, Anger, Sexual Abuse, Lust for Rape leading to all kinds of sickness and perversion
And now it wants to wear the moral mask facing the world. 
I don't know when people will wake up seeing true colors of Mark Zuckerberg before he does much more harm in the next decade

Dude, Facebook exists. It will continue to exist and evolve. You want it to improve or not? Because there is no future where it doesn't exist.

[Thought Art]

4 hours ago, Baotrader said:

FB has been responsible for drowning people in dopamine that harmfully contributes to exploit mental illness and all kinds of human's shadow side: Jealousy, Anger, Sexual Abuse, Lust for Rape leading to all kinds of sickness and perversion
And now it wants to wear the moral mask facing the world. 
I don't know when people will wake up seeing true colors of Mark Zuckerberg before he does much more harm in the next decade

Seems more like a people problem 

[Scholar]

On 11.3.2022 at 5:59 PM, Sucuk Ekmek said:

I get your criticism Facebook allows this action only for 'invaders', but anyone can be invader once you control the narrative. Maybe next invader going to be the president of America? 

I think they in particular defined it as soldiers who are in Ukraine, and this is only allowed in Poland, Ukraine and Russia. They also allowed calling death to Putin but only if there is no credible reason to believe that these calls for violence have an intention to be actualized.

Basically Facebook doesn't want to get involved in censoring people who currently speak up against the invasion, which considering how emotional of a topic that is will have language that falls outside of the norm.

 

On 11.3.2022 at 10:11 AM, Yarco said:

Can you provide any sort of document or formal declaration where world governments declared that their global agenda was love and unification? I have personally never heard this.

(Not just in a baseless way where they say something that sounds nice, and then go on supporting and funding wars. After they make such a statement, I expect their actions to match their words)

Would you feel differently if the global agenda changed to something that you strongly disagreed with on a moral level? Or do you think we should always go along with the global agenda "for the greater good"?

From what I understand imperialism in the past usually was a result of a genuine desire to unify and create a world of harmony and peace. This kind of desire was present in many of the great Conquerors, including Adolf Hitler.

The desire for Utopia is an essential part of Imperialism. And it works, Imperialism actually served to unify the world. We would not live in the world we live in if there was no imperalism, if people hadn't been forcefully unified into a bigger identity. Imperialism was one of the main drivers of human progress.

 

At this moment, Western and American imperialism is one of the main drivers of the unification of the world. Culture is being distributed, and thanks to that the ability to understand and communicate with each other. Remember, if cultures cannot relate to each other, they will tend to communicate and negotiate through conflict. There has to be one overarching world-culture, for the world to be at peace.

Western culture will attempt to smother any other culture, and seek to integrate it into itself. This is a process of evolution. Western culture is the most likely to dominate the future because it is the most advanced and because we have reached a point of stability that makes it unlikely that a fundamental change will occur at this point. It is also unlikely that a completely new culture will emerge and define progress, simply because of the tendency of collectives to take the path of least resistance.

Edited March 12, 2022 by Scholar

[Sucuk Ekmek]

27 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I think they in particular defined it as soldiers who are in Ukraine, and this is only allowed in Poland, Ukraine and Russia. They also allowed calling death to Putin but only if there is no credible reason to believe that these calls for violence have an intention to be actualized.

Basically Facebook doesn't want to get involved in censoring people who currently speak up against the invasion, which considering how emotional of a topic that is will have language that falls outside of the norm.

 I am not worried about intentions to be actualized  but I  worry about future definitions. These are very intelligent corporations, if they want they can use any language or information as weapon aganist literary anybody or government. For example ''Apple Will Scan U.S. iPhones For Images Of Child Sexual Abuse''. This basically means now if they want they can justify and scan images for war criminals and then sometime later when a mindshift happens they can justify the same thing for potential criminals. I just can't look at the things basically...

[PurpleTree]

16 minutes ago, Sucuk Ekmek said:

 I am not worried about intentions to be actualized  but I  worry about future definitions. These are very intelligent corporations, if they want they can use any language or information as weapon aganist literary anybody or government. For example ''Apple Will Scan U.S. iPhones For Images Of Child Sexual Abuse''. This basically means now if they want they can justify and scan images for war criminals and then sometime later when a mindshift happens they can justify the same thing for potential criminals. I just can't look at the things basically...

it's certainly dicey, that's why these companies should be broken up and not hold too much power but then we have to trust the government which also is problematic

[Scholar]

14 minutes ago, Sucuk Ekmek said:

 I am not worried about intentions to be actualized  but I  worry about future definitions. These are very intelligent corporations, if they want they can use any language or information as weapon aganist literary anybody or government. For example ''Apple Will Scan U.S. iPhones For Images Of Child Sexual Abuse''. This basically means now if they want they can justify and scan images for war criminals and then sometime later when a mindshift happens they can justify the same thing for potential criminals. I just can't look at the things basically...

Technology can be used for the good and the bad. But that will be the case either way, the only hope you have is that the individuals in these companies are conscious enough to use this technology responsibly. If humanity cannot figure out how to use measely technologies like these responsibly, we will not stand a chance to survive the next 1000 years.

At some point, there might be a technology that could easily wipe out all life on earth. Infact, at some point anyone might be able to create such a technology in their garage, that's how much technology could evolve. Before then, we have to have these problems figured out and solved. And these small, insignificant technologies are a perfect way for us to explore this and make mistakes so that we can learn from them.

 

If humanity stays as it is now, as simply evolves technologically speaking, it will certainly wipe itself out. We already are on that pathway, and we can barely motivate ourselves to act in our best interest. Mankind is deeply dysfunctional, underdeveloped, ignorant and selfish. Much to learn, we have.

 

Be glad that you are not part of the generation that will have to worry about self-replicating nano-bots that can easily be programmed to consume all organic matter and turn it into toxic, radioactive waste, and that once you release them into the world are impossible to stop. If there is one bad or even incompetent actor in that world that has access to that technology, it would be the end.

[rnd]