On Facebook, You Can’t Threaten Violence…Unless It’s Aimed at Invading Russians

Facebook alters its speech policies to respond to Ukraine’s invasion. Facebook has been known to ban or suspend users who threaten violence against groups or individuals. This is true even when the threats aren’t serious—remember when people reportedly got suspended for sarcastically posting “kill all men”?—or credible. In an unusual twist, Meta, the parent company of Facebook has announced that they will let users on Instagram and Facebook in certain countries call for violence against Russian military force.

Meta’s spokesperson said in a statement that “as a consequence of the Russian invasion Ukraine, we have temporarily made allowances to forms of political expression which would normally violate our rules such violent speech like ‘deathto the Russian invaders’.” We won’t accept credible calls to violence against Russian civilians.

Meta will temporarily permit posts that call for death to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko. This is according to Meta email to content moderators which were viewed by Reuters.

The calling for leaders’ murders will not be tolerated unless there are other targets, or two indicators that they have credibility like the method or location, as one email stated in the recent changes to the company’s policies on violence and incitement.

“We have issued a spirit-of the-policy exception to permit T1 violent expressions that would otherwise fall under the Hate Speech Policy when (a) Russian soldiers are targeted, EXCEPT prisoners-of-war, or (b), Russians are being targeted where it is clear that the context refers to the Russian invasion in Ukraine. (e.g., the content contains references the invasion, self defense, etc.Per Reuters, this was stated in the Meta email internal.

These rules are applicable to Instagram users in Armenia and Azerbaijan as well.

Russian embassies are expressing dismay at the decision.This is what we want. [American]Authorities stop extremist activities @MetaThe Russian Embassy in Washington advised that they would take all necessary steps to ensure justice is served. tweeted yesterday. “Users #Facebook & #InstagramThis did not allow the platforms’ owners to set the standards of truth or pit nations against one another.

But honestly, it’s refreshing to see Facebook keeping its speech policies flexible and context-contingent, rather than trying to police the anger and anguish—no matter how intemperately expressed—of people responding to acts of war.

Much more controversial—but still the right decision from a free speech perspective—is Facebook’s decision to allow posts praising the Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian military regiment “known for its hardcore right-wing ultranationalism and the neo-Nazi ideology pervasive among its members,” as The InterceptIt is simple. It was originally an all-volunteer unit, but it became part of the Ukrainian National Guard. The battalion has been an integral component of the defense of Ukraine against Russian forces.

Facebook had previously banned pro-Azov speech as a violation of its Dangerous Individuals and Organizations Policy. However, Facebook changed its policy to allow praise for the Azov Battlion when it explicitly and solely praises their role in the defense of Ukraine or their contribution to the National Guard. This was according to internal Facebook documents. The Intercept.

Meta’s changes to its speech policy in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine won’t please everyone. The fact is that Meta can make such calls to respond to changes in circumstances, and it has the ability and capability of adopting a more nuanced approach.“yay Neo-Nazis!”—nay; “thanks to the Azov Battalion for defending our border”—OKThis demonstrates why it is better to leave such decisions to the private sector than government bureaucrats.

You should keep this in mind when you press the U.S. government on Facebook to punish or threaten it for permitting pro-Russian posts.

Joohn Choe, a Facebook contractor, and Whistleblower Aid filed a complaint to the U.S. Department of Justice. Facebook “is knowingly aiding or abetting Russia’s information war.”[legitimize]Choe said that the pretextual base of this war was Choe Washington Post.

But media, politicians, and social platforms under Russian control are doing plenty of that on their own—without anyone being allowed to talk back. Allowing proRussian voices on Facebook and other U.S. tech platforms allows people to counter their propaganda and push back against them.


Additional evidence that masks children:


Take delivery from a grocery store with no checkout.Timothy B. Lee Full Stack Economics The first Amazon “Just Walk Out Whole Foods” Whole Foods in Washington, D.C. was visited and it worked well. Lee writes that Amazon’s Just Walk Out technology poses a threat to traditional grocery stores. This is how it works.

Just Walk Out allows you to identify yourself by using Amazon’s mobile application. You shop as normal once you get inside. Items are taken off shelves and placed in regular baskets or shopping carts. You are detected by cameras on the ceilings, and the scales at the shelves. Amazon’s AI software will then figure out your actions by simply “just walking out.”

This technology will make it possible to eliminate store cashiers and transform the grocery industry.


• “The Consumer Price Index rose by 7.9 percent through February, the fastest pace of annual inflation in 40 years,” reports The New York Times.

• A Russian-Ukrainian woman talks to Nancy Rommelmann about being Russian in Ukraine right now and how Russians are being fed misinformation in their own country.

• Is there a coming (or current) wave of sex-negativity?

• A peek back into the phone sex world of the ’90s.

• Why can’t the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tell the truth about teens and vaping?

• Vice President Kamala Harris’ signature awkward/inappropriate laugh strikes again:

• The new geography of remote work: Upwork’s latest survey—with more than 23,000 U.S. respondents—found 2.4 percent of people surveyed “have already moved because of remote work since 2020” and 9.3 percent “are planning on moving because of remote work, compared to 6.1% in October 2020.”

• A new bill in Ohio would prohibit educators from “failing to fairly present both sides of a political or ideological belief or position.” What is 9-11’s “other side”? The history of slavery in America? Howard Wilkinson from WVXU asks. What is the best thing for a teacher when a student in high school sees that Joe Biden has been elected as president in November 2020?

• Is Web3 real or fake?