Ukraine war: For Facebook, violence against invaders is okay...unless they're Israeli

First came the warnings that Facebook and Instagram were harmful to mental health, then emerged the whistleblowers who slammed the platforms for prioritising profit over user safety and selectively enforcing content moderation rules.

And this week, we realised that rebranding the platforms was never intended to rewrite the rules, as much as it was an attempt to start fresh and pretend there was no strong headwind.

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta - the parent company of Facebook and Instagram - reportedly made exceptions in the company’s rules to allow users in certain countries to post content with violent rhetoric and hate speech directed towards Russians.

The decision, which allows for content that would otherwise be removed under the platform’s Hate Speech policy, is in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

"As far as we know, these rules are temporary and contingent upon the developments in Ukraine. But that does not stop us from pointing at the large elephant in the room: the role of tech companies in impacting policies and shaping public opinion"

It is now acceptable for Facebook and Instagram users in Russia, Ukraine, and neighbouring countries to incite violence and call for the death of Russian soldiers, Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, and his Belarusian counterpart, Aleksander Lukashenko. The change in policy will also allow for praise for the Azov battalion, a far-right neo-Nazi faction of Ukraine’s armed forces.

In Meta documents acquired by Reuters, exceptions to the exception were also introduced. Incitement of violence against Russian civilians will not be tolerated, and calls to assassinate Putin and Lukashenko will be prohibited if they have two indicators of credibility: the location and/or method of the assassination.

The Russian government responded by banning the Meta platform in the country, labelling it an “extremist organisation.”

As far as we know, these rules are temporary and contingent upon the developments in Ukraine. But that does not stop us from pointing at the large elephant in the room: the role of tech companies in impacting policies and shaping public opinion.

"When the refugees have white skin, blonde hair, blue eyes and are sufficiently European, suddenly the horrors of war become really repugnant." Sam Hamad on why only European people's lives are worthy of empathy in western media 👇 https://t.co/SvExtONL0u

— The New Arab (@The_NewArab) March 2, 2022

Most of the Silicon Valley companies emerged in the relatively peaceful era following the end of the Cold War. This allowed them to brand themselves as independent, liberal, and a free hub for fresh ideas and entrepreneurship.

The renewal of the conflict between the West and Russia reshuffled the cards for these companies, so much so that, according to Politico, Big Tech CEOs met hastily after the Russian troops began moving into Ukraine to discuss the pros and cons of restricting Russian online content.

The case of free speech was raised as a main concern, but the majority of major social media platforms eventually opted to ban Russian state media content, citing appeals from Kyiv and other Western countries to do so.

We know that immediately after the invasion had started, Microsoft and Google partnered with the US government to counteract Russian cyberattacks on Ukraine. Whether that was initiated by the companies or pressured by US and European governments remains unknown. Similarly, we do not know - not yet at least - whether Meta’s explicit incitement for violence was steered by the US government, or simply an executive decision from within the company.

Apart from the fact that Zuckerberg’s step has effectively ended Meta’s business in Russia perhaps permanently, the tech giant’s bold move ushers in a new phase of social media’s “deep involvement” in geopolitical conflicts.

Meta is no longer used only for political gains and the manufacturing of public opinion, much like other Big Tech, but is now also a partner in the “legal exercise of violence,” an area that has historically been categorically monopolised by the state.

What is unfolding on social media platforms today provides a hint as to how tech companies might in the future create de facto norms in fighting wars and managing conflicts.

These powerful companies have the power to filter out content not just for violating community standards, but for simply not being in line with their core narratives and the world order within which they operate.

"If Meta denied Ukrainians their right to express their anger at their invaders, much less prevented them from communicating their plight to the world, that would have stirred up a global uproar, and rightly so. But this is not a privilege granted to everyone"

In doing so, they break the “democratic rules of free speech and anti-discrimination”, not in the explicit manner of totalitarian regimes, but implicitly by having a monopoly on the interpretation of these rules. This gives them broad leeway with censorship, almost with impunity, to decide whom to target, how, and to what extent.

In some ways, Meta’s decision to allow hate speech is not new. Facebook and Instagram have for years turned a blind eye to hate speech and incitement of violence in several conflicts across the world. The military in Myanmar used the Meta suite practically uncensored to incite genocide against the country’s Rohingya minority. The bias was so staggering that it led to a $150 billion lawsuit against Facebook.

In India, the platform is routinely used by government-associated extremist Hindu organisations to post anti-Muslim inflammatory content. Despite recommendations by Facebook researchers to remove extremist groups from the platform, for inciting violence and promoting hate speech, nothing materialised.

Responding to protestors’ appeals, Facebook and Instagram in July last year also allowed Iranians to post chants calling for the death of Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei.

But in the Ukraine case, no protests or appeals were needed; Meta took the initiative. Nick Clegg, Meta president of global affairs, justified the call for violence against Russian soldiers on the grounds that Ukrainians’ expressions of resistance and fury at the invading army are rightful.

Indeed, if Meta denied Ukrainians their right to express their anger at their invaders, much less prevented them from communicating their plight to the world, that would have stirred up a global uproar, and rightly so.

But this is not a privilege granted to everyone. The platform has for so long adopted a proactive role in the Israeli-Palestinian “conflict,” but in the opposite spirit to that of Ukraine.

Instead of elevating the voice of the occupied and censoring the occupier, whose methods of operation and colonial practices are not very different from those of the Russian army, Meta muzzled Palestinians and went out of its way to block their online content.

"One cannot help but imagine the global reaction had the Russian army been given the same privileges of the IDF, or if Ukrainians were censored online as Palestinians have been"

Last year, right-wing Israeli Minister of Justice Ayelet Shaked bragged about her government’s meetings with Facebook bosses to look over “anti-Israel content online.” In a four-month period, Facebook granted 158 requests by the Israeli government to remove Palestinian content on the platform, 95% of all requests.

These requests have since become - more or less - a go-to censorship scheme against which Meta judges and often takes down Palestinian content. In other words, Facebook and Instagram have grown to see Palestinians through Israeli eyes.

One cannot help but imagine the global reaction had the Russian army been given the same privileges of the IDF, or if Ukrainians were censored online as Palestinians have been. What would have happened if Meta allowed Ukraine to be portrayed through Russia’s eyes?

Whichever the case, there are no signs Zuckerberg’s Meta has any plans to change its policy to give voice to the marginalised.

There is no precedent in Silicon Valley in that direction either.

Dr Emad Moussa is a researcher and writer who specialises in the politics and political psychology of Palestine/Israel.

Follow him on Twitter: @emadmoussa

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@alaraby.co.uk

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.