7 ms·

On the contrary, I think this says less about FB, but more so reflects a hypocrisy in "western principles" that many are probably not self-aware of. Let's assu

by monklu 5y ago

On the contrary, I think this says less about FB, but more so reflects a hypocrisy in "western principles" that many are probably not self-aware of. Let's assume for a second, that FB do not relax their rules for this conflict. Then they would have to ban a whole sleuth of Ukrainian accounts, including many government accounts such as Ministry of Defense, and probably even Zelensky. You don't have to stretch your imagination to see what the headlines would look like in that case -- "Facebook bans Ukrainian resistance against Russian aggression" etc. In a sense, FB was a facing a catch-22 situation, where it's just lose-lose for them, and they had to make a call to swallow the "less poisonous" pill. Contrast this situation with American war efforts in the middle east and Afghanistan over the past 20 years, where they faced no such conundrum.

zozbot234 5y ago
They could relax their rules to allow for calls to military self-defense in the context of a "military operation" that has been condemned by the UN, while still banning "calls for violence" against Russians. The two are nothing like each other! Self-defense, or "standing one's ground" is not the same as initiating violence.
- nindalf 5y ago
  This is the most absurd take. So they should stand their ground against the Russian advance, but inflict no harm to the Russian soldiers? You’re welcome to try it, but please forgive the Ukrainians if they take the common sense route. By the way, there’s a reason we admire Tank Man, but we don’t know his identity.
  - hervature 5y ago
    In case you are unaware, stand-your-ground is a term that allows for deadly force to repel an attacker instead of mandating retreat if it is an option. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
    - apologiesalso 5y ago
      I think most people are okay with that, especially in the west, but I'd say all over the world. But in the west you have strong values of fighting for your freedom, arming yourself, having the right to be armed and to fight for your freedoms and that death is better than surrendering your freedoms.
      - ahartmetz 5y ago
        These are only US traditions, especially about firearms. And if I look at the results, your idealistic and self-confident description seems a bit too positive.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - nindalf 5y ago
      I’m aware of it. But in the context of war, it’s splitting hairs.
- monklu 5y ago
  Pardon me, but isn't that exactly what they're doing? > "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.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    "Death to the Russian invaders" is nationalistic propaganda of the sort that Putin likes to point to when he calls Ukrainians "nazis". It's not a sensible call to engage in self-defense. For one thing, it does not properly distinguish between ordinary Russians, of whom there are plenty in Ukraine (Russian even used to be an official language before the Ukraine government removed it as retaliation against the Crimea referendum) and the Russian military involved in the "operation".
    - gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
      Heh wait until Putin finds out the Gondorians- uhh Ukrainians- think they are orcs.
    - iso1631 5y ago
      Are ordinary Russians invaders?
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        Do we really want to ask that question? We might not like the answer that some Ukrainians may give. Facebook was saying that "calls for violence on Russians" are okay given the context, full stop, then they clumsily backpedaled on the civilians issue and then only for threats they arbitrarily judge as "credible", which tells you how ridiculous the back-pedaling was. This is not going well for them.
        8note 5y ago
- nradov 5y ago
  Is a UN resolution the appropriate standard? The General Assembly vote was non-binding, and it didn't specifically call for violence against Russian soldiers. So that seems like a shaky basis for Facebook to set content policies. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/3/un-general-assembly-demands-russia-withdraw-troops-from-ukraine https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/3/un-general-assembly-... To be clear, I support the right of Ukrainians to defend themselves against foreign aggression. I just think these constantly shifting Facebook censorship policies are ridiculous.
- trasz 5y ago
  Problem is, given the circumstances, any violence against Russia would be a morally valid form of defense. Including whatever might happen within Russia.
PhantomBKB 5y ago
They should have kept it quiet in any case. The rhetoric hurts them either way.
- bastawhiz 5y ago
  Hurts them how?
  - PhantomBKB 5y ago
    If they keep quiet about the issue, the public might protest about their inaction. If they make a move like they've done now, it's going to look like they are pro hate speech which also does not look good from the perspective of humanity.
    - bastawhiz 5y ago
      Neither consequence that you've listed would or has actually hurt them
      - PhantomBKB 5y ago
        ok man, peace
moltke 5y ago
These "Western Principles" are primarily what separate us from Russia. Without those who cares which government we live under?
rajin444 5y ago
Private companies should not get in the business of policing content. Follow the laws of the land and that’s it. It’s not really a foreign concept. We don’t deny somebody sunlight or air because they do something we don’t like (we as in non government entities - governments do deny people “air”). The world would be a better place if businesses operated as close to a natural resource as possible and left politics to politicians. It’s dumb luck that sunlight isn’t provided by some corporation. Systems like that are what we should strive for.
- georgyo 5y ago
  > Follow the laws of the land and that’s it. Which laws? If Russia says that all posts that call the "Special Military Operation" a war are illegal and Ukraine says they are legal, which is correct?
  - rajin444 5y ago
    Companies at that scale can easily show different posts in different regions. It requires principles to remain a “natural resource” but it’s probably the most moral position to take if you believe your service helps better humanity (whether or not fb does that is a different discussion).
    - georgyo 5y ago
      I am going to remove morality from the discussion temporarily, and instead talk about how practical that is. A post breaks a law in 100 countries, but does not break the law in 20 countries. Should all 100 countries file their own removal process? Should there be an army of reviewers who are knowledgeable about all laws reviewing all posts? What about that confusion that different people from different regions are seeing different timelines for the same user. The US has Federal Laws, State Laws, and City Laws. All of these are laws of the land. No company can keep up with all local laws. "Breaking the law" is highly subjective by itself. Take the US for example, we have "Freedom of Speech," but that does not protect all speech. Many of these cases go to court taking years to determine if something was or was not protected. Should meta defer all moderation to the legal court system? What you are suggesting makes sense in a vacuum, but cannot exist in reality.
apologiesalso 5y ago
> On the contrary, I think this says less about FB, but more so reflects a hypocrisy in "western principles" that many are probably not self-aware of There's really no hypocrisy. Western principles are: freedom, liberty, democracy, individual rights and equal opportunity for all above all. This explains much everything pretty well. War against any country that goes against these principles is okay. War in order to try and bring those principles to others or protect them is okay. Similarly, social media used in ways that could put those principles at risk, is not okay. Social media that is used in ways that supports and promotes these principles is okay. There are a few cases where it is hard to tell if social media is used for or against those principles, and these get tricky, but there's still no hypocrisy. The challenge is understanding if it is for or against the principles. For example, it is hard to know if implying that the US elections were corrupted and that's why Trump lost is for or against those principles. If the elections were not corrupted, then that idea is against those principles, it is itself the corrupted idea trying to geopardize democracy. But if it is true that the elections were corrupted, then that idea is in fact fighting to protect those principles. The same thing applies here. Whatever message Facebook in the end feels is helping the principles will be allowed, if right now it's helping Ukraine motivate its troops, rally support and defend itself, then that's going to be the policies. It's all logical from the principles. Ukraine is seen as fighting for its right to democracy, liberty and freedom, and Russia is seen as fighting against that.
aerovistae 5y ago
Reminds me of my favorite internet essay of all time, no longer available except on wayback machine[1] > ...the US criminal justice system is overwhelmingly preoccupied with procedure and process, often at the expense of justice. This myopia is the product of a technocratic bureaucracy. > The contemporary incarnation of the peculiar mindset of Anglo-American jurisprudence leads to the question, “Were the rights of all parties, as enumerated by the law, protected?”, eclipsing the much larger issue: “Is this outcome compatible with justice?” While these comments are in reference to the legal system, I think they are equally applicable to the mindset pervading the oversight of today's tech world. [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20210308014253/https://likewise.am/2014/12/26/what-armenians-should-know-about-life-in-america/ http://web.archive.org/web/20210308014253/https://likewise.a... Note - the author is an intermittent HN user, abalashov.
- nyanpasu64 5y ago
  Personally I feel at least as unsettled about selective enforcement of rules (allowing some rule-violators to avoid getting caught or go unpunished once found out), or punishments or retaliation outside of rules, as harmful consequences of fully enforcing rules which are difficult to make "just" in all cases. Is there a better solution?
- macintux 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law
saurik 5y ago
I don't think you are disagreeing at all: you are merely stating the result of not having principles. Yes: if you take a principled stance, sometimes you make "negative" headlines... but the honest reality here is that Facebook makes tons of negative headlines anyway, so they not only have to bear that cost but they additionally come off as, well, unprincipled.
beaconstudios 5y ago
You've clearly constructed an argument for a belief I've held for a while about these deontological ethical positions but never quite had the words to express, so thank you for that. Following the rules consistently is not more important than doing the right thing.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
NicoJuicy 5y ago
Euh, you call it war efforts. Military interventions were always related to promoting democracy in countries. Since it was something the population actually wants, the amount of casualties were always low, eg. interventions were there are '0 boots on the ground' are preferred. That's not what's happening now by Russia, since Russia has no interest in promoting democracy and considers it a threat. Russia has more casualties in a couple of weeks than the combined military interventions over 20 years by the west. There's a very BIG difference.
jasonm23 5y ago
Btw wrt "sleuth of Ukrainian accounts", I think you meant slew.

by monklu 5y ago

zozbot234 5y ago

They could relax their rules to allow for calls to military self-defense in the context of a "military operation" that has been condemned by the UN, while still banning "calls for violence" against Russians. The two are nothing like each other! Self-defense, or "standing one's ground" is not the same as initiating violence.

nindalf 5y ago
This is the most absurd take. So they should stand their ground against the Russian advance, but inflict no harm to the Russian soldiers? You’re welcome to try it, but please forgive the Ukrainians if they take the common sense route. By the way, there’s a reason we admire Tank Man, but we don’t know his identity.
- hervature 5y ago
  In case you are unaware, stand-your-ground is a term that allows for deadly force to repel an attacker instead of mandating retreat if it is an option. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
  - apologiesalso 5y ago
    I think most people are okay with that, especially in the west, but I'd say all over the world. But in the west you have strong values of fighting for your freedom, arming yourself, having the right to be armed and to fight for your freedoms and that death is better than surrendering your freedoms.
    - ahartmetz 5y ago
      These are only US traditions, especially about firearms. And if I look at the results, your idealistic and self-confident description seems a bit too positive.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - nindalf 5y ago
    I’m aware of it. But in the context of war, it’s splitting hairs.
monklu 5y ago
Pardon me, but isn't that exactly what they're doing? > "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.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  "Death to the Russian invaders" is nationalistic propaganda of the sort that Putin likes to point to when he calls Ukrainians "nazis". It's not a sensible call to engage in self-defense. For one thing, it does not properly distinguish between ordinary Russians, of whom there are plenty in Ukraine (Russian even used to be an official language before the Ukraine government removed it as retaliation against the Crimea referendum) and the Russian military involved in the "operation".
  - gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
    Heh wait until Putin finds out the Gondorians- uhh Ukrainians- think they are orcs.
  - iso1631 5y ago
    Are ordinary Russians invaders?
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      Do we really want to ask that question? We might not like the answer that some Ukrainians may give. Facebook was saying that "calls for violence on Russians" are okay given the context, full stop, then they clumsily backpedaled on the civilians issue and then only for threats they arbitrarily judge as "credible", which tells you how ridiculous the back-pedaling was. This is not going well for them.
      - 8note 5y ago
nradov 5y ago
Is a UN resolution the appropriate standard? The General Assembly vote was non-binding, and it didn't specifically call for violence against Russian soldiers. So that seems like a shaky basis for Facebook to set content policies. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/3/un-general-assembly-demands-russia-withdraw-troops-from-ukraine https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/3/un-general-assembly-... To be clear, I support the right of Ukrainians to defend themselves against foreign aggression. I just think these constantly shifting Facebook censorship policies are ridiculous.
trasz 5y ago
Problem is, given the circumstances, any violence against Russia would be a morally valid form of defense. Including whatever might happen within Russia.

PhantomBKB 5y ago

They should have kept it quiet in any case. The rhetoric hurts them either way.

bastawhiz 5y ago
Hurts them how?
- PhantomBKB 5y ago
  If they keep quiet about the issue, the public might protest about their inaction. If they make a move like they've done now, it's going to look like they are pro hate speech which also does not look good from the perspective of humanity.
  - bastawhiz 5y ago
    Neither consequence that you've listed would or has actually hurt them
    - PhantomBKB 5y ago
      ok man, peace

moltke 5y ago

These "Western Principles" are primarily what separate us from Russia. Without those who cares which government we live under?

rajin444 5y ago

Private companies should not get in the business of policing content. Follow the laws of the land and that’s it. It’s not really a foreign concept. We don’t deny somebody sunlight or air because they do something we don’t like (we as in non government entities - governments do deny people “air”). The world would be a better place if businesses operated as close to a natural resource as possible and left politics to politicians. It’s dumb luck that sunlight isn’t provided by some corporation. Systems like that are what we should strive for.

georgyo 5y ago
> Follow the laws of the land and that’s it. Which laws? If Russia says that all posts that call the "Special Military Operation" a war are illegal and Ukraine says they are legal, which is correct?
- rajin444 5y ago
  Companies at that scale can easily show different posts in different regions. It requires principles to remain a “natural resource” but it’s probably the most moral position to take if you believe your service helps better humanity (whether or not fb does that is a different discussion).
  - georgyo 5y ago
    I am going to remove morality from the discussion temporarily, and instead talk about how practical that is. A post breaks a law in 100 countries, but does not break the law in 20 countries. Should all 100 countries file their own removal process? Should there be an army of reviewers who are knowledgeable about all laws reviewing all posts? What about that confusion that different people from different regions are seeing different timelines for the same user. The US has Federal Laws, State Laws, and City Laws. All of these are laws of the land. No company can keep up with all local laws. "Breaking the law" is highly subjective by itself. Take the US for example, we have "Freedom of Speech," but that does not protect all speech. Many of these cases go to court taking years to determine if something was or was not protected. Should meta defer all moderation to the legal court system? What you are suggesting makes sense in a vacuum, but cannot exist in reality.

apologiesalso 5y ago

> On the contrary, I think this says less about FB, but more so reflects a hypocrisy in "western principles" that many are probably not self-aware of There's really no hypocrisy. Western principles are: freedom, liberty, democracy, individual rights and equal opportunity for all above all. This explains much everything pretty well. War against any country that goes against these principles is okay. War in order to try and bring those principles to others or protect them is okay. Similarly, social media used in ways that could put those principles at risk, is not okay. Social media that is used in ways that supports and promotes these principles is okay. There are a few cases where it is hard to tell if social media is used for or against those principles, and these get tricky, but there's still no hypocrisy. The challenge is understanding if it is for or against the principles. For example, it is hard to know if implying that the US elections were corrupted and that's why Trump lost is for or against those principles. If the elections were not corrupted, then that idea is against those principles, it is itself the corrupted idea trying to geopardize democracy. But if it is true that the elections were corrupted, then that idea is in fact fighting to protect those principles. The same thing applies here. Whatever message Facebook in the end feels is helping the principles will be allowed, if right now it's helping Ukraine motivate its troops, rally support and defend itself, then that's going to be the policies. It's all logical from the principles. Ukraine is seen as fighting for its right to democracy, liberty and freedom, and Russia is seen as fighting against that.

aerovistae 5y ago

Reminds me of my favorite internet essay of all time, no longer available except on wayback machine[1] > ...the US criminal justice system is overwhelmingly preoccupied with procedure and process, often at the expense of justice. This myopia is the product of a technocratic bureaucracy. > The contemporary incarnation of the peculiar mindset of Anglo-American jurisprudence leads to the question, “Were the rights of all parties, as enumerated by the law, protected?”, eclipsing the much larger issue: “Is this outcome compatible with justice?” While these comments are in reference to the legal system, I think they are equally applicable to the mindset pervading the oversight of today's tech world. [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20210308014253/https://likewise.am/2014/12/26/what-armenians-should-know-about-life-in-america/ http://web.archive.org/web/20210308014253/https://likewise.a... Note - the author is an intermittent HN user, abalashov.

nyanpasu64 5y ago
Personally I feel at least as unsettled about selective enforcement of rules (allowing some rule-violators to avoid getting caught or go unpunished once found out), or punishments or retaliation outside of rules, as harmful consequences of fully enforcing rules which are difficult to make "just" in all cases. Is there a better solution?
macintux 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law

saurik 5y ago

I don't think you are disagreeing at all: you are merely stating the result of not having principles. Yes: if you take a principled stance, sometimes you make "negative" headlines... but the honest reality here is that Facebook makes tons of negative headlines anyway, so they not only have to bear that cost but they additionally come off as, well, unprincipled.

beaconstudios 5y ago

You've clearly constructed an argument for a belief I've held for a while about these deontological ethical positions but never quite had the words to express, so thank you for that. Following the rules consistently is not more important than doing the right thing.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

NicoJuicy 5y ago

Euh, you call it war efforts. Military interventions were always related to promoting democracy in countries. Since it was something the population actually wants, the amount of casualties were always low, eg. interventions were there are '0 boots on the ground' are preferred. That's not what's happening now by Russia, since Russia has no interest in promoting democracy and considers it a threat. Russia has more casualties in a couple of weeks than the combined military interventions over 20 years by the west. There's a very BIG difference.

jasonm23 5y ago

Btw wrt "sleuth of Ukrainian accounts", I think you meant slew.