If there’s one thing big tech has been consistent on it’s their idea that violent speech should be silenced around the world. What they’ve been even more consistent on is picking and choosing what constitutes “violent speech.” If you belong to the right group, any and all words directed your way that is anything less than exultation is dangerous because it may lead to violence. If you’re in the wrong group, you’re on your own.
Russians find themselves today in an unfortunate group.
According to Reuters Facebook, Instagram and Twitter will allow hate speech as well as calls for violence towards the Russian invaders.
According to internal emails obtained by Reuters, Meta Platforms (FB.O), will enable Facebook users and Instagram users to demand violence against Russians or Russian soldiers within the context of Ukraine’s invasion. This is a temporary modification to Reuters’ hate speech policy.
Internal emails from its moderators indicate that the company temporarily allows posts calling for death of President Vladimir Putin in Russia or President Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus.
“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.
On a surface level, I don’t disagree with this decision. If someone were invading my country and I still had access to the internet I’d be giving away the enemy’s locations whenever I saw them and doing what I could to put them in danger using social media as a tool. My twitter feed would encourage violence against my fellow countrymen and me.
However, it is odd for Facebook (or Meta Platforms that were formerly called Facebook) to suddenly allow such a thing. They have long maintained that violence could occur if speech was considered offensive.
Many were expelled including Donald Trump because they claimed that the election had been stolen. This led to the January 6 riots at the Capitol. While Trump stated outwardly that those protesting at the capitol shouldn’t do so, they claimed his presence online and the complaints about fraud fuelled violence.
According to Facebook, we couldn’t talk about the Chinese origin of the COVID-19 virus because it would fuel violence against Asian people here in the states. The entire “stop Asian hate” campaign was created around this idea that even mentioning the fact that the Coronavirus was Chinese-born would send people into a frenzy and cause them to lash out at Asian-Americans
Facebook would continue to promote violence against Russian soldiers if it did not change its original ideas.
It gets better…
According to Reuters Facebook will permit temporary praise of Azov battalion (an ultra-nationalist group that the United States regards as a terrorist group) according to Reuters.
Also, emails showed that Meta was open to praising the Azov battalion of the right, something normally banned. This change was first reported by The Intercept.
The Meta spokesperson previously said the company was “for the time being, making a narrow exception for praise of the Azov Regiment strictly in the context of defending Ukraine, or in their role as part of the Ukraine National Guard.”
But wouldn’t this praise open up the opportunity for the spreading of the group’s messaging and increase recruitment efforts? Facebook shuts down conservative groups on the basis that they were spreading disinformation that originated from Russia and feared this would sway elections by recruiting people to the Republican’s side.
Meta Platforms must get their message across here. Are violent speeches a problem as they can lead to violence against innocents? Does the encouragement of ultra-nationalist organizations constitute a crime that should be punished because it can lead to dangerous wrong thinking?
Facebook seems to be okay with violence as long as hatred for one group is popular. It will also abandon the previous claims that violent speech would only result in violence against innocent people.
About Post Author
