with a rebel yell she QQd posted:

Russian friends say that in response to the (fake) news that Meta will allow hate speech against Russians, Russia is planning to block Instagram.

KitConstantine posted:

Interesting camera angle choices, almost like it's trying to make it look like there's more dudes than there are

Antigravitas posted:

It's probably worse than that, because Germany tends to make the things that make things. Go into any halfway automated factory and odds are there's a German machine driving some weirdly specialised production step you've never heard of before, and the only supplier is a 20 person company in Hintertupfingen. And when that machine breaks the production line is hosed.

Ataxerxes posted:

Yes, but what I meant was not that he is keeping his hand still, but rather that to me it seems that it is moving uncontrollably, as if my he had had a stroke or had Parkinson's.

Alchenar posted:

Yeah that's really the deal here. Vastly less money in the state budget, which means that continuing to spend lots on the military has real consequences for domestic investment and consumption that will be felt. No more fancy Western made optics or electronics or engines, so beyond domestic rockets you have an armed forces that's stuck in the 80's trying to threaten a Western alliance that is rearming for a 21st Century fight. A lot of the kit that's being lost right now can never be replaced.

This is the high water mark of Putin's Russian. Come what may the Russian armed forces will literally never again be as powerful as they were the day before they stepped over the Ukranian border.

steinrokkan posted:

They think they are discriminating against our people on Facebook? We'll show those amateurs how it's done *Putin presses the button that bans all Russians from Facebook*

KitConstantine posted:

A Russian scholar pointed out that bit of the Putin conversation today that seems to have been overlooked
https://twitter.com/ArtyomLukin/status/1502232703902666754?t=1VxY8pRNj2RkhTNSz6sgVg&s=19

with a rebel yell she QQd posted:

Russian friends say that in response to the (fake) news that Meta will allow hate speech against Russians, Russia is planning to block Instagram.

Twincityhacker posted:

A disability and trans activist I really respect just retweeted this onto my timeline:

https://twitter.com/ungnyeodongji/status/1501410334069960704?s=20&t=kuv3wqeGk3vNzSz9JtLLHA

Which is... confusing but not entirely wrong? And then I go to the retweeted person's page and she's a tankie and like two tweets down she loving denying the Holdomer and YIKES.

What about this war that is breaking people's brains???

Nieuw Amsterdam posted:

“Sanctions don’t work” because they are almost exclusively used on states that are already poor and isolated.

Oh no the North Korean and Iraqi economies are severed from global trade. Doesn’t really matter, and if your population is already poor they are used to bad conditions.

Where did sanctions actually work? South Africa. They desperately did not want to be a pariah state and had a lot of rich and middle class (white) people for whom losing foreign travel, trade, and investment was a disaster. Add in some domestic unrest and voila, cooperation was a better option than defiance.

Nieuw Amsterdam posted:

“Sanctions don’t work” because they are almost exclusively used on states that are already poor and isolated.

Oh no the North Korean and Iraqi economies are severed from global trade. Doesn’t really matter, and if your population is already poor they are used to bad conditions.

Where did sanctions actually work? South Africa. They desperately did not want to be a pariah state and had a lot of rich and middle class (white) people for whom losing foreign travel, trade, and investment was a disaster. Add in some domestic unrest and voila, cooperation was a better option than defiance.

quote:

Strongest psychological resistance of personal responsibility for difficult decisions. It is a result of the 1) above, but in turn, this also leads to a mechanism for denying his own guilt/responsibility even to himself. From this, considering 3) above, we can say the following with near absolute certainty: Putin is psychologically incapable of refusing with justification, an offer from his closest circle. But this also leads to the conclusion that he does not guarantee anything to anyone by saying "yes", because to guarantee is to take responsibility. With high probability I assert that in case of an offer from his closest circle, he will agree with every offer, delegating the control/responsibility to the person making the offer. Psychologically, he will not have any contradictions with "agreement" to mutually exclusive proposals - "you yourself are to blame if you failed."

quote:

Actual threats of conventional rocket strikes against Europe [not bluffs] in the event of further sanctions can no longer be dismissed. Supporters of such an approach, who exist among those with influence on the decision, muse that in a sordid case we will simply be crushed by waiting until an internal implosion and collapse from inside (in Russia).

In addition to the rockets, we have the capability to conduct a massive cyberwar – the internet can be shut down (by Russia inside Russia). Such a possibility exists and it’d be difficult (for the West) to respond symmetrically (since Russia won’t have internet anyway).

And the external war should reduce the internal tension and redirect the aggression outward. However “should” – doesn’t mean it’ll be so.

KitConstantine posted:

A Russian scholar pointed out that bit of the Putin conversation today that seems to have been overlooked
https://twitter.com/ArtyomLukin/status/1502232703902666754?t=1VxY8pRNj2RkhTNSz6sgVg&s=19

Inferior Third Season posted:

Ah, yes. An unprovoked invasion of Poland. A good idea for anyone truly committed to their stated goal of denazification.

Dick Ripple posted:

It is interesting how Boris is one of the loudest voices against Putin, yet Russians own like half of London still.

Man Plan Canal posted:

Is it "fake" news? As best as I can tell the lay of the land is that a number of journalistic outlets, starting based on a Reuters story, report seeing internal Meta emails discussing the policy; then asked Meta for comment, then got a comment from a spokesperson acknowledging the truth of the emails and the change in policy. Then someone in this thread works for Meta and asked a contact they had if it was true, and the contact said no.

As an outside observer, this seems to leave me with the following possibilities:

1. The goon who works at Meta didn't ask the right person and the person he asked was out of the loop, which is extremely normal because Meta has massively dysfunctional comms.
2. The goon who works at Meta asked the right person and the story is substantially true but Meta are understandably frightened about the private terminology being public and so eventually plan to deny the framing while confirming the story.
3. Reuters systematically faked the entire story, even though it's trivially easy to rebut and they'd obviously get caught because the world is watching, and even though Reuters journalists almost surely have access to emails sent to Facebook moderators because there are lots of leaks from those sources because there are many many content moderators and journalists have developed source networks over the last 5 years of reporting about Facebook content moderation
4. Reuters accidentally fell for fake emails, gullible rubes that they are, and the Meta spokesperson they contacted to confirm it didn't bother checking if they were true and responded as if they were true, providing a true confirmation for a fake story.

I don't really think 3 or 4 are viable possibilities. Like, the news wasn't "Meta is allowing hate speech against Russians", the news was "Meta has general rules against calling for violence which make sense during peacetime and not in the context of war. In the direct context of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, making comments that celebrate or call for attacking Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine won't be punished irrespective of general rules against this stuff." Also, the story sort of tracks on a basic level: obviously it is going to be untenable for Meta to moderate calls to violence in the context of a war the way they would in the context of a civil situation.

Dick Ripple posted:

It is interesting how Boris is one of the loudest voices against Putin, yet Russians own like half of London still.

Dr. Arbitrary posted:

I don't think that's true. You still need the private key to decrypt messages, which normally you wouldn't need to provide when requesting a certificate.

Charlz Guybon posted:

Just seize it and then sell it on the cheap to your own supporters in country while pocketing some of the money. Good press and Toey corruption at the same time. It's so simple.

Willo567 posted:

Russia isn't about to attack a NATO country and get the U.S. involved

fez_machine posted:

Again that's defining sanctions working in terms of change in government or internal policy (which the only successful example I can think of is South Africa). Where they might have a chance in the current case is forcing Russia to conform to international norms of power projection, both North Korea and Iraq were/are unable to be belligerent in the same manner they might have been before sanctions.

Often Abbreviated posted:

Six weeks ago I would have said the same about attacking Ukraine. Russian leadership may not be making the smartest decisions.

distortion park posted:

those russian oligarchs are a key part of his in country support

with a rebel yell she QQd posted:

Ugh, if its indeed real, its extremely disturbing. gently caress the war, gently caress Putin and gently caress Russia. But what does allowing hate speech aimed at Russians especially in countries with significant Russian minorities (according to the emails) going to achieve?

with a rebel yell she QQd posted:

Ugh, if its indeed real, its extremely disturbing. gently caress the war, gently caress Putin and gently caress Russia. But what does allowing hate speech aimed at Russians especially in countries with significant Russian minorities (according to the emails) going to achieve?

quote:

"We are issuing a spirit-of-the-policy allowance to allow T1 violent speech that would otherwise be removed under the Hate Speech policy when: (a) targeting Russian soldiers, EXCEPT prisoners of war, or (b) targeting Russians where it's clear that the context is the Russian invasion of Ukraine (e.g., content mentions the invasion, self-defense, etc.)," it said in the email.

"We are doing this because we have observed that in this specific context, 'Russian soldiers' is being used as a proxy for the Russian military. The Hate Speech policy continues to prohibit attacks on Russians," the email stated.

Mokotow posted:

One thing I’m struggling with, amongst many, admittedly, is the Transnistria situation. While Russia was able to move in troops there before the war, I just don’t see how they could keep them supplied in any capacity should this front flare up. There’s no way to fly in as it’s surrounded by closed airspace and in direct range of Ukrainian AA, there’s no direct land connection and obviously no sea shore. The only way they could go is to link up with the Crimean front, requiring a swift move and Odessa to fall - something that won’t happen in enough time for the Transnistrian russian forces not to be destroyed.

slowdave posted:

Having such unprecedented sanctions levied against an economy very much tied to global financial interests is a pretty historically uncharted territory, I'd think.

with a rebel yell she QQd posted:

But what does allowing hate speech aimed at Russians especially in countries with significant Russian minorities (according to the emails) going to achieve?

Herstory Begins Now posted:

people also just do this when they're nervous or stressed

Man Plan Canal posted:

GABA ghoul posted:

Not sure if this has been posted yet

https://twitter.com/mgerrydoyle/status/1501927357061296131?t=X4fgaYKg96qB-GNhDZC7Wg&s=19

The official social media account of a freaking embassy of a major state mocking the victims of a maternity ward bombing. What a time to be alive

with a rebel yell she QQd posted:

Ugh, if its indeed real, its extremely disturbing. gently caress the war, gently caress Putin and gently caress Russia. But what does allowing hate speech aimed at Russians especially in countries with significant Russian minorities (according to the emails) going to achieve?

Often Abbreviated posted:

Six weeks ago I would have said the same about attacking Ukraine. Russian leadership may not be making the smartest decisions.

cinci zoo sniper posted:

That’s a sensible analysis of what could have potentially gone wrong (given prior of assuming Reuters is infallible, which I personally disagree with in the light of other recent examples from them on U/R), to which I’d like to add option 5: Reuters is partnered with various agencies globally, including Russia’s TASS. This could be honest to god reporting of material questionably sourced by one of their partners.

quote:

Yeah it’s this that bothers me. That alleged policy change is pants-on-head stupid, and unnecessary for supporting the goals it claims to support.

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

I mean, it's not allowing hate speech, it's allowing the same sort of stuff this thread would allow. Someone say "god I'd like to shoot putin in the face" with an amount of latitude that would not be allowed with "god I'd like to shoot biden in the face" or something because the "in a war" stuff is preempting the normal rules of "don't threaten politicians"

Charlz Guybon posted:

They're poor now and they're foreigners. Time to stab them in the back.

quote:

“You have to decide: either you are with us, or with them, and then hand over one of your passports,” Sergey Mironov believes. “Given the kind of anti-Russian policy that Western countries are now pursuing, it seems to me absolutely logical that Russian citizens who have citizenship of these countries make their choice and surrender one of their passports.”

fez_machine posted:

Sanctions have historically proven to be absolutely hopeless at provoking regime change but they might be pretty good at preventing states from being able to wage conventional wars.

As far as I know no state that's been under sanctions has engaged in a conflict with another state along conventional lines.

Which might actually be preventing regime change as typically revolutions happen after military adventurism.