Russia opens criminal investigation of Meta over death calls on Facebook

[gambler]

If you need to change your platform's rules for literally every major event (elections, Covid, this war) there is something profoundly wrong both with your rules and your platform.

There is tremendous value in having actual principles. So many people either forgotten it or never understood that to begin with.

[monklu]

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.

[mancerayder]

I think principles went out the window when both the new generation and journalists decided:

"You can't stay still on a moving train." I.e., everything is biased, no one is objective, and no platform can be objective because everything has an implicit position (even no position is a position). In other words, a very postmodern "no objective truth can be obtained" take.

So yes, the rational, logical next step is loosey goosey terms and conditions that change, cynical decisions based on who's talking, couched loosely in some sort of vague idea or principle. It does remind me a lot of the corporate world.

[jfengel]

It doesn't surprise me that a novel medium would change its rules as unexpected events arise.

I've got plenty of qualms about the way Facebook has handled it, but of course there was something wrong with the rules -- they had never tried them out under these circumstances. All three of the things you cite are using/abusing social media in ways that have never been done before.

Principles are great, but if you can't change your principles when the world changes around you, then they're not so much "principles" as "dogma". The world is a complex and difficult place, and I don't expect any simple set of principles to be adequate to all of the things I don't anticipate. I try to anticipate everything I can, but it's no surprise that I'm sometimes surprised.

[nindalf]

Feel free to suggest different rules. Start with the publicly accessible “Community Standards” and edit it to the point where they are consistent and comprehensive in your book with no special cases. We’ll wait.

In reality what you might find is that even some obvious rules like “no naked pictures of obvious minors (<10 years) should be allowed” have exceptions to it. And if you can’t reason why this is true (I’m thinking of a specific picture), then at least admit the task you’re implying is trivial is harder than it looks.

[JaimeThompson]

The actual principles of FB are make as much profit no matter what it costs others stopping only to make changes when the profit flow might be impacted.

[ProAm]

The problem is Facebook has never had principles beyond market share and ads, we can be honest about that one.

[azinman2]

The world isn’t black and white. While I don’t really support this specific Meta policy, it would be myoptic to think you could create a set of rules that will last forever. That’s why the US laws didn’t end with the constitution, the constitution itself can be amended, and we have judges who interpret individual laws for individual cases.

[jasonm23]

Does anyone honestly believe Mark Zuckerberg has principles?

He's never demonstrated this in any way shape or form.

[davidgay]

I'll grant you elections, but changing rules for century-defining events like the pandemic or the Ukraine war seems very normal to me.

In a parallel and far more impactful setting, laws are changed far more often and for far lesser reasons.

[justapassenger]

If you don't change as the world around you is changing, then there's something profoundly wrong with you.

[belter]

Facebook is just being truthful to what always was their guiding principle, drive engagement, and make money out of it.

[cyanydeez]

Sounds more like it's a macro cosm of society.

We change our rules for catastrophic events, always.

[StreamBright]

I think we used to have principles. Not anymore. Only rules for special class of events or people.

[stuckinhell]

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” - 1984

[Mountain_Skies]

Tech companies are making themselves active participants in conflicts involving powerful countries. Sooner or later, one of those countries is going to reach out and strike back in the physical world. It's just a matter of time. When it was little nudges in color revolutions in relatively weak countries, there was not much to worry about. Now? They're playing with fire and the tech folks doesn't seem they have a clue that this is the case. They feel very secure launching attacks against nation-states that have histories of creating very bad luck for unprotected outsiders who involve themselves in a conflict.

[justapassenger]

> Tech companies are making themselves active participants in conflicts involving powerful countries

Same can be said about media companies, banks, car manufacturers, luxury brands, fast foods, etc.

[archibaldJ]

Well this drives up demand for the body-guard & security industry. And then maybe the military industry.. Soon we’ll see Meta buying submarines to invest in its in-house defence department or something

[jotm]

I mean, what is the country going to do? At best they can launch a cyber attack (or a lot of them). Any physical action would immediately involve the host country - bombing the Facebook HQ for example could be considered a terrorist act or even a war declaration.

[trhway]

>Tech companies are making themselves active participants in conflicts involving powerful countries.

sometimes there are situations when one can't be neutral. A genocidal war like the one Russia is waging in Ukraine is such a situation.

>Sooner or later, one of those countries is going to reach out and strike back in the physical world.

Like Saudis did. So, it is a personal choice of everybody - whether to live by Russian/Saudi rules even when you're in US.

Ukraine people chose to not live by Russian rules and are being genocided for that.

[hiyer]

I wonder if Facebook would be equally lenient to, say, Palestinians calling for violence against Israeli soldiers; or Houthis calling for violence against Saudi Arabian ones.

[daenz]

The next Modern Warfare game is going to be very different than it's FPS predecessors.

[bananabiscuit]

I’m honestly hyped for a new golden age of movies and games where Russians are the bad guys. I feel like Russian bad guys always had more character and really made you want to see the hero outmaneuver them. Arabs just didn’t do it for me the last two decades.

[aasasd]

Will it be an economic strategy where the player gets to decide to stop buying Russian gas by 2030? You know, do the one thing that Pu and buddies actually care about.

[listless]

Underrated observation here

[justsomehnguy]

Am I right to assume what Meta would adhere to the same principles in any other similar case? Eg (countries and nationalities are work of fiction and are the products of the author's imagination):

    $string = 'Two weeks into $country1's war in $country2, a Meta spokesperson said on Thursday the company had temporarily eased its rules for political speech, allowing posts such as "death to the $nationality invaders," although it would not allow calls for violence against $nationality civilians'
    $country1 = 'Russia', 'US, 'Israel', 'UAE'
    $country2 = 'Ukraine', 'Iraq', 'Palestine', 'Yemen'
    $nationality = 'Russian', 'American', 'Israeli', 'Saudi'

    foreach ($i in 0..3) {...}

In my own personal opinion a company what decides what some people, chosen by some arbitrary attributes, are more equal than others can never claim to have a better moral principles than some $country Ministry of Truth.

[JumpCrisscross]

> would adhere to the same principles in any other similar case?

Consistency isn’t the paramount principle in a moral system. If you have a compulsion for kicking babies, controlling that impulse most of the time is better than going hog wild on a kindergarten because you lost control once.

Facebook is an awful company. But it’s doing the right thing here. That action commendable, even if it’s doer is usually not.

[jjtheblunt]

I wonder if, like I, people see the word "Russia" and think it means two distinct things: the mobsters and their network of organized embezzling and crime and terror to protect themselves who currently control the Kremlin, and the millions of innocent people along for the ride.

Seems Russia has this tail recursive shitty luck of essentially mobsters raping the country for well over a century.

[lalaland1125]

Didn't Russia already ban Facebook? What's the point of this legal game?

[TestSIM1]

Here in Russia it's a total clusterfuck at this point.

1) Roscomnadzor bans Twitter in Russia.

2) Russian embassy posts on Twitter claiming Mariupol hospital bombing was faked.

It's like:

Should we ban Twitter in Russia? Yes.

Should we keep posting Russian propaganda on Twitter? Also yes.

[fmakunbound]

You don’t have to be on Facebook to live in a world affected by it unfortunately

[Wowfunhappy]

There's really no reason for Facebook to make this rule specific to Ukraine. If your country has been invaded by a foreign army which is violently attacking civilians with tanks and bombs, it's perfectly reasonable to cheer for the deaths of the invading soldiers.

This is basically analogous to the concept of self-defense. Actually—would it be against Facebook's rules to post about how you fought off someone who tried to break into your house to kill you?

[muzika]

By this action, Facebook effectively “called” its users to call for violence.

Very bad idea.

[exdsq]

And, from what I’ve admittedly only briefly read, they’d be right to do so. The only reason this should be acceptable is if Ukrainians are sharing intel on where Russian troops are in order to avoid them (that might break some T&Cs so I can imagine those being lifted temporarily). But not this.

[realmod]

At least, more people will now be exposed to our utter hypocrisy. I used to be a staunch supporter of a free unrestricted internet but the disproportionate power US has is unsustainable - and frankly a threat to sovereign nations. China's firewall seems to have been the right path after all.

[sirmike_]

Oh is that so? It will be interesting to see if I end up in FB jail over this one. The kinder way to say this is "May the people of Russia remove the blots of tyranny staining their flag." Also the classic one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist.

[holoduke]

To me reading the Dutch headtitle literally saying ' Facebook allows deadcalls' was something I have never read in my entire life in the west. I am shocked by this absurd statement. I am opposing everything related promoting violence.

[xdennis]

> I am opposing everything related promoting violence.

You can't fight off an invasion with flowers and nice words.

[djohnston]

Russia also legalized piracy against unfriendly countries, surely this investigation will lead to substantive outcomes!

[blobbers]

Why does anyone actually care about Russia investigating Facebook? Is it surprising? They've done this with every technology that they can't control.

Russia is trying to slander anyone who is accusing them of being the bad guy. Vladimir Putin is very clearly the bad guy in this story. Russia is waging an immoral war. A free sovereign nation making attempts to improve the lives of the citizens within its own borders should not be attacked.

[deworms]

I wonder if they allow to add a narrowing discriminator? What if you posted "death to invading Russian soldiers of Jewish descent"? Even in this simple case it's easy to see how this policy is misguided.

[8note]

I assume the Russian army still forces Russian Jews to the front of the firing line

[aasasd]

For the context, ’listing as an extremist organisation’ is just a euphemism for forbidding a government-opposing group of people and harassing them individually with prosecution, while ‘opening a criminal case’ means than the gov found another company who's doing too much of the opposition thing. Both are nothing new here.

(Of course, FB's specific action the FB-Kremlin exchange here are rather nonsensical and even comical, compared to the usual proceedings.)

[tus666]

Are facebook employees literally like targets for death now worldwide? Can Russians just go around killing them with impunity?

[infamouscow]

It's called war.

[lifeplusplus]

USA banned Huawei so not really different

[voidr]

I guess I should now assume that Facebook endorses everyone else who aren't in this policy, examples: The Taliban, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, North Korea etc.