From the Facebook community standards: “We remove content that glorifies violence or celebrates the suffering or humiliation of others…”
Required addition: “…except when its violence we approve of or that sufficient number of our users will cheer.”
As I noted in the previous post: the Big Tech leaders are untrustworthy people. The fact that they wield so much power and influence over American beliefs and attitudes is terrifying.
Ethics Alarms 
Sometimes I’m a man of few words.
What a terrible headline in that tweet. The headline on the Reuters site at the moment makes it clearer it’s just talking about Russian soldiers, not Russian civilians, as does the article itself:
“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.”
In principle, this honestly seems fine to me; in practice, it will be enforced about as well as all rules on social media platforms containing millions of users. They may as well have made no change at all.
That’s preposterous. If you’re anti-violence, you can’t have an exception for military violence because according to pacifists, state sponsored violence, particularly in its purest form of WAR, is the epitome of violence. Russian soldiers are victims too! And besides, all forms of nationalism are bad.
Oops, war, not Wins Against Replacement.
1) When did the people behind Facebook claim to be “pacifists?”
2) When did the people behind Facebook claim that all forms of nationalism are bad?
3) Is defending one’s nation against a hostile foreign invader really a form of “nationalism?”