[pillowkusis]

This thread is an interesting perspective on social media "censorship" that you don't hear often.

Of course everyone working at a social media company has an ideological bias, and that can come out in the product. But consider also that the latest censorship controversy creates negative PR, makes people leave the platform, attracts regulatory attention, and ultimately, hurts the company's profits. Content moderators are at least as worried about that as they are about making sure their ideological opponents aren't given a voice.

Social media companies are in the unenviable position of playing referee in the culture war, and like referees in any sport, they're going to constantly be criticized for doing it, right or wrong. These companies are global and universal, and there's no way they can satisfy all parties. Sometimes, the values of left and right, or Iran and the US, or Israel and Palestine, are just irreconcilable. You're better off just trying to avoid as much trouble as possible, and avoiding negative media attention.

Reddit is probably the most ham-fisted example of this approach. Their content moderation is pretty hands off, but as soon as any subreddit attracts negative attention, it's quarantined or banned, no matter if the controversy is justified or not. When Russia invaded Ukraine and Russia Is Bad Now, they just straight up banned /r/russia and any link to an .ru domain! That does nothing to address the conflict, but it does keep those NYT opinion pieces from showcasing Problematic Russian Bot Behavior on Reddit.

I'll note that I don't think this model fully explains moderation policies at Twitter or other social media sites. I genuinely believe moderation leans left due to an ideological monoculture (I've seen it first hand). But it's important to recognize the difficult situation social media sites are in.

[julianeon]

I'm surprised I haven't seen the 'steelman' argument for Musk and free speech on Twitter, made as faithfully as I can to emulate Musk's perspective. I'm going to make it (disclosure: I don't personally believe it).

When Trump was booted from social media, it was censorship. We tend to overlook this, because Twitter & FB agreed on it; but another perspective is possible, that Trump should be able to speak freely as the leader of the country supported by half its population (no less than 40%, anyway). Trump should be able to make statements that aren't censored because, when he makes them as President, they are inherently newsworthy & worthy of circulation.

But to take this even further, this isn't simply about one guy's Twitter takes; it's much larger than that. Because under Trump we were starting to see the emergence of something that is probably inevitable: the full hybridization of popular culture, technology, and media, in the form of a perpetually on engine of user engagement. This is probably the model of the future, and Twitter is uniquely positioned to not just bring it to the people (as it was under Trump), but to monetize it (which they didn't do, really).

What are the upsides of this? A more engaged voter population. A move of politics back towards the center of cultural life, where it should be. A closer integration of politics, culture and ecommerce. And, if done in a principled way, an end to the perception that people can be suppressed for saying the wrong thing (see: Trump).

That's the value that Musk could unlock. That's what could conceivably make Twitter as important as FB, and even more central to American life. That, combined with some aggressive product delivery, and a shakeup away from the product doldrums, could be transformative for Twitter. If Musk gets his way, that's the change he could make.

[zuminator]

> another perspective is possible, that Trump should be able to speak freely as the leader of the country supported by half its population

Arguably Trump would've been banned under Twitter rules a whole lot quicker if he hadn't been the leader of the country supported by half its population.

> people can be suppressed for saying the wrong thing (see: Trump).

People are lying to themselves if they think they are in favor of unfettered speech. Otherwise your favorite online forum would be chock-filled with Viagra links, crypto, nft and forex spam, multipage crank proofs of the coming singularity, race-baiting rants of the worst sort, ASCII art, Base64 encodes of Blu-Rays, etc. We all want limits on speech, we just differ in where those lines should be drawn.

> What are the upsides of this? A more engaged voter population. A move of politics back towards the center of cultural life, where it should be. A closer integration of politics, culture and ecommerce.

People become strongly politically engaged because there is something they strongly dislike about current public policy. Politics being the center of cultural life is a sign of bad things going on. So I don't see fighting angrier and more hypercharged online wars as an upside. If anything it just primes people for fighting angrier and more hypercharged offline wars, which is where we seem to be headed.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Politics being the center of cultural life is a sign of bad things going on

I was going to disagree. But then the historical examples that come to mind at the tail end of democracies and republics is this sort of populist (versus civic) engagement.

[xapata]

Indeed. I wish we had more data to analyze good ways to survive this crisis. Sadly, the predominant result seems to be reversion to dictatorship.

[sjg007]

A dictatorship only resolves things be basically by “cleansing” the heretical thoughts of the others. Not a very good solution nor is it respectful of free speech.

[JumpCrisscross]

> nor is it respectful of free speech

Argument is there are certain modes of free speech that are unstable. They create social harmonics that empower populists who tear down the liberal order and destroy the rights that brought them to power (and could now threaten to topple them).

Classical case for this, with respect to democracy (not free speech), is Athens.

[chubot]

Trump should be able to make statements that aren't censored because, when he makes them as President, they are inherently newsworthy & worthy of circulation.

FWIW this isn't really adding something to the conversation, not that I've been paying very close attention.

I believe Facebook and Twitter already had a "heads of state" clause in their policy that recognizes this.

Yup: https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/3/22474738/facebook-ending-p...

In other words, heads of state were already allowed to say things that normal users aren't, based on the reasoning you state.

According to executives that made a one-off decision, Trump crossed those more relaxed lines.

Of course a lot of it had to do with the transfer of power in the US -- he would soon no longer be a sitting president.

As Yishan says, these decisions aren't really based on "principles". They are based on "shitstorms that are brewing and that we want to avoid", of which January 6 was a perfect example.

[someguydave]

Why doesn’t the telephone company need to deplatform people to “avoid shitstorms”?

[chubot]

Not an expert, but how would you incite a riot with the telephone? It just doesn't work.

TV is a closer analogy, but back in the days of broadcast TV, you had to get airtime with one of a dozen networks. (And Trump did this! He had the number 1 show on TV for awhile in the early 2000's. He continued building his brand as a "rich guy who makes deals" there.)

You can't just come back the next day and broadcast another message, i.e. testing what works and iterating. It takes a whole team of people to make a broadcast. Also, the audience would watch TV at home; they didn't have a device to consume the message anywhere. It was fundamentally slower.

Even blogs are slower, although you can definitely get deplatformed for a blog. Blogs lack discoverability; they don't broadcast to followers. In the heyday of blogs most people weren't reading them on their phone.

So social media, and Twitter in particular, is a really effective communication technology for broadcasting sharp messages.

Telephones do have similar issues -- there is a reason that wiretaps exist and that traditionally the phone company was a monopoly with close ties to the government. But they're not a "platform" for broadcast.

[someguydave]

so, "social networks" are a "very special" kind of webpage that uniquely require suppressing "bad ideas"?

[dageshi]

I think the point of Yishan's post is that social networks are not the equivalent of telephone companies, they're their own thing and can't really be compared to what came before or treated as such.

[sjg007]

Nah, you can't incite a mob which is what did Trump in and Twitter should regulate the speech of foreign officials per US law. Trump has many other ways to communicate with the people including and not limited to Press conferences. Heck, Trump could email people.

Twitter has no moral requirement to broadcast anything he says. It ain't a utility and it ain't news.

[pm90]

> That, combined with some aggressive product delivery, and a shakeup away from the product doldrums

This argument seems to be that Musk is a hero and he will transform Twitter which is currently being mismanaged. That isn’t a very good argument unless you’re a Musk fanboi. Just to state one reason: actively transforming Twitter while also leading both SpaceX and Tesla just isn’t gonna work, and he hasn’t put forth anything serious so far to explain how he intends to make this change.

[mensetmanusman]

Musk clearly knows how to delegate a vision.

[madeofpalk]

You're making the exact argument Twitter made for not banning Trump during the first 3.8 years of his presidency. Like literally "Trump is newsworthy" is word-for-word the reason Twitter used for keeping him on.

Then, they thought that they were, or could be, complicit in a violent domestic attack, and made a call.

[sjg007]

Sweet sweet ad revenue.

[tigershark]

They actually were complicit in a failed coup. They are lucky that nobody had the balls to prosecute the organisers of the coup and only the rubes that actually participated are somewhat paying.

[jimbob45]

The steelman is that they still allow the Taliban on Twitter but not Trump. The literal Taliban. The one that throws gays off buildings and stones women for allowing themselves to get raped. The one that thinks that, if the Holocaust didn’t happen, then it should have. The one that celebrates 9/11 as a national holiday. There is no logical rationale for which you can claim that Trump is worse than the Taliban unless you hate Trump and want him gone.

The actual steelman is simple - if you’re going to have a platform, then you should only be able to boot people off for legal reasons. Picking and choosing winners in any other fashion is too prone to human bias. The argument that some are too stupid to recognize misinformation from the truth is exactly the argument used by totalitarian regimes in the past.

[wvenable]

> Their content moderation is pretty hands off, but as soon as any subreddit attracts negative attention, it's quarantined or banned, no matter if the controversy is justified or not.

That's the point. They just want the controversy to go away. To suggest that they should care about justification is to make them moral arbitrators.

[pillowkusis]

Exactly! I don't respect it, but it's a very understandable response. Just stop making this controversy our problem.

The "correct" response in my eyes is to say "we are a platform, we aren't responsible for the speech of our users as long as it is legal," but that's a very expensive and profit-negative strategy these days.

[wvenable]

> we aren't responsible for the speech of our users as long as it is legal

Except if you are hosting content, you are responsible for it. Maybe not even legally but you are still responsible. You can't simply wash your hands of content that you literally pay to host on the internet just because a user posted it.

[afpx]

If you look up the archive from that time frame, you'll see that /r/russia was pure Russian propaganda.

[user3939382]

I've been accused several times recently of believing "Russian propaganda" about the war in Ukraine which of course I find very offensive. I'm an intelligent person, I've analyzed the situation, listened to different sources, and come to the conclusion that the western powers, the US in particular, and to some degree Ukraine, are not as much in the right as they pretend to be. From my perspective, the western political establishment is, through the corporate media, daily pushing propaganda to support their narrative.

When it comes to individuals, it would be nice if we could all respect each other's right to our own opinions without attacking other people's intelligence, attacking their character, or accusing them of bad faith.

[mickotron]

So you think the invasion was justified? I believe the US and friends are not saints. But whataboutism is meaningless when cities are being destroyed and civilians are losing their lives, regardless of where it is.

[rayiner]

I don’t think the invasion was justified per se, but I think it was a predictable outcome of what the west was doing.

The fact of “civilian losing their lives” is where I think creates the differences in views. For many people, especially Americans, they can’t get past that or put the body count in perspective. Others, and I think this includes much of the non-western world, are more like “well people die, what’s special about this?” I don’t say that to be callous, my point is that 50,000-100,000 people die annually in state based conflicts, and everyone morally triages them, and that can produce different results.

UNHR estimates 2,000 civilian deaths so far in Ukraine. That was a typical number for (1,500-3,500) for civilian deaths in Afghanistan each year for the past decade. And you probably didn’t post anything about it on your Facebook, right?

So let’s get past deaths. What’s happening in Ukraine? The 20th century conflict between the “first world” and the “second world”—a conflict so epic that the terminology has become part of our vernacular—ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. When empires collapse they don’t just vanish. There was an informal agreement among all involved that the west would leave Russia its space. Remember, we were fighting against the Soviets in places like Korea and Vietnam. So giving them a buffer in Eastern Europe against NATO was a good deal. Maintaining buffer states to avoid conflict between major powers is a centuries old practice rooted in pragmatic considerations.

So what happened? NATO reneged by gobbling up Eastern European countries and pushing ever closer to Russia’s border. Russia sees NATO encroaching closer and closer to their border, flirting with allowing membership of a country in Russia’s border. What were they going to do?

[jacquesm]

> I don’t think the invasion was justified per se

No kidding, glad we got that out of the way.

> I think it was a predictable outcome of what the west was doing.

Aka the 'Mearsheimer' doctrine. Which is patent nonsense, but it gives cover for what you apparently want to believe.

> NATO reneged by gobbling up Eastern European countries and pushing ever closer to Russia’s border.

NATO didn't gobble up anything. The countries that joined NATO did so because they were scared shitless of Russia re-invading them at some point in the future, because all the signs were pointing in that direction and none of these countries felt like becoming the next Belarus. NATO doesn't 'gobble', no country was ever forced to join NATO that did not want it, but Russia does.

Those countries have to date been proven right on four occasions where other countries, not in NATO were attacked rather than them, and there is a fair chance that if Ukraine had joined NATO before the 2014 invasion that that would have never happened to begin with.

[rayiner]

> Aka the 'Mearsheimer' doctrine. Which is patent nonsense, but it gives cover for what you apparently want to believe.

I’ve never heard of Mearscheimer until my dad sent me a video. I think his general view aligns with ours. I don’t need “cover” for anything my opinion is quite common. I also took a bit of international affairs and European history in college so I’m not starting from scratch here.

> NATO didn't gobble up anything. The countries that joined NATO did so because they were scared shitless of Russia re-invading them at some point in the future, because all the signs were pointing in that direction and none of these countries felt like becoming the next Belarus. NATO doesn't 'gobble', no country was ever forced to join NATO that did not want it, but Russia does.

NATO had every right to say no and should have said no. These little countries shouldn’t be affecting the balance of world power.

> Those countries have to date been proven right on four occasions where other countries, not in NATO were attacked rather than them, and there is a fair chance that if Ukraine had joined NATO before the 2014 invasion that that would have never happened to begin with.

I think if NATO had rejected admission of other Eastern European countries the war would never have happened either.

[implements]

> So what happened? NATO reneged by gobbling up Eastern European countries and pushing ever closer to Russia’s border. Russia sees NATO encroaching closer and closer to their border, flirting with allowing membership of a country in Russia’s border. What were they going to do?

Nothing. NATO isn’t something akin to the Soviet Union - a collection of client states politically and militarily dominated by a single country styling itself an expanding imperial power - it’s a simple mutual defence pact.

It’s reasonable for Russia to object to theatre range nuclear missiles and specific military systems on its borders, and that’s the sort of thing treaties between NATO and Russia should cover - but it’s entirely unreasonable for Russia to argue that Ukraine should not have the capacity to defend its borders from invasion, that this from NATO membership constitutes an intolerable military threat - it simply doesn’t, nor in the modern era are countries allowed to dictate neutrality to their neighbours as a condition of their own security.

[mickotron]

If your country/city was being shelled, you wouldn’t have the luxury of turning this into an abstract intellectual exercise.

What happened in Afghanistan was devastating and horrific.

You think because I’m a Westerner that I have “picked a side” and look past our own crimes. I don’t.

Russia also reneged. They agreed to protect Ukraine’s borders and sovereignty.

[arnvald]

As a citizen of a country that joined NATO in the late 90s, I really believe that if we didn't join NATO, we'd be on of the targets right now.

NATO didn't force us to join, we asked for it, as an independent country which suffered a lot for centuries.

All the "NATO provokes" Russia are garbage, because they remove us, the countries that decided to join NATO, from the equation. We acted in our own interest, to protect ourselves from Russia and free ourselves from Russian influence. We didn't plan to "push against the borders of Russia", we planned to protect ourselves, and today more than ever I believe we were right to do so.

[slibhb]

I agree that NATO and the US made decisions that led to the war in Ukraine.

But that's a causal question, there's nothing moral about it. It's like saying someone who walked through the bad part of town and got mugged made a bad decision. But morally speaking the mugger is in the wrong, Russia is in the wrong. Ukraine, a sovereign state, is allowed to flirt with joining NATO or enter trade agreements with the EU. Besides, somewhat ironically, Ukraine would have no reason to join NATO if the Russia wasn't an ever-present threat to Ukrainian sovereignty.

People are just talking past each other. Realists aren't making moral prescriptions and moralists are worried about right and wrong, the violations of sovereignty and the body count. Both perspectives are necessary. Moralism can't guide foreign policy completely but it can't be totally absent. Reasonable people can disagree about the right mix.

Like the grandparent poster noted, it is strange and irritating that realists are being shouted down as "Russian agents" by mindless moralists.

[psyc]

I think it's a lot harder to explain this to people after they've had it hammered into them that "victim blaming" is really bad, and you must never do it or appear to be doing it. There's a context in which it is. But there's another in which that line of thinking falls apart. For the purposes of the victim during the attack, the attacker might as well be a zombie. They're not your fellow human that you can have a chat with and teach them to empathize with you, at least not in that time and place. You could also shout at them during the attack, "This is your fault, not mine!" but I don't see what good that does.

I actually used to think this when I was four years old. That if a burglar broke in, I would simply talk to them and explain what they're doing is wrong.

[rayiner]

I think this is all correct.

[timeon]

> giving them a buffer in Eastern Europe

This is so surreal. Like trading with colonies. You really thing that people in Eastern Europe should not have say in this?

This whole point is not rooted in reality because Ukraine was not joining NATO. It was not possible for them. They were maybe going to join EU. Even after invasion it seemed like real option but this is now probably not going to happen as well for different reasons (diplomatic relations between Ukraine and some EU countries).

So this invasion has nothing to do with NATO. "Buffer states" are not going to change situation between Russia and NATO. Putin has nukes - he does not really cares about NATO.

[mongol]

> Russia sees NATO encroaching closer and closer to their border, flirting with allowing membership of a country in Russia’s border. What were they going to do?

They could recognize that joining NATO is a ultimately the choice of the states that choose join NATO, and respect that. It is that simple.

[jacquesm]

Technically, joining NATO is not the choice of those countries alone, but also of those countries already in NATO. But principally, the freedom to apply to join should be granted to any sovereign country. And that's exactly the problem: Russia doesn't see a whole lot of countries as sovereign but as 'temporarily misplaced'.

[dropit_sphere]

>They could recognize that joining NATO is a ultimately the choice of the states that choose join NATO, and respect that. It is that simple.

Empirically, it's not!

[KuiN]

> UNHR estimates 2,000 civilian deaths so far in Ukraine

This number is nowhere close to being accurate. UNHCR "believes that the actual figures are considerably higher" [0]. More than 900 dead discovered since the liberation of the areas around Kyiv [1]. And we've not yet had the opportunity to count the dead in Mariupol, or Russian controlled areas.

> And you probably didn’t post anything about it on your Facebook, right?

Millions in the West spoke out with horror and revulsion at the death tolls in the 9/11 Wars.

[0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/news/2022/04/ukraine-civilian-casua... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/15/number-of-civi...

[jacquesm]

Here is what they write below that figure:

"OHCHR believes that the actual figures are considerably higher, as the receipt of information from some locations where intense hostilities have been going on has been delayed and many reports are still pending corroboration. This concerns, for example, Mariupol and Volnovakha (Donetsk region), Izium (Kharkiv region), Popasna (Luhansk region), and Irpin (Kyiv region), where there are allegations of numerous civilian casualties. These figures are being further corroborated and are not included in the above statistics. "

But that somehow didn't make it into the quote by the GP.

[rayiner]

> Millions in the West spoke out with horror and revulsion at the death tolls in the 9/11 Wars

Those were of course much higher. I’m talking about the annual death tolls after 2010 when everyone in the west thought that the war was long over.

[philjohn]

Except Gorbavhev himself has said there was no such agreement, and you ignore that there are already NATO nations on the Russian border.

[user3939382]

I think Russia's Article 51 defense for the invasion is, to be charitable, a stretch, and that the invasion is probably illegal. I say probably because I'm not a lawyer and it's a complicated matter of international law. Russia does at least have a cohesive argument. If anyone's curious, it has to do with defending the republics it recognized as independent, and then requiring the invasion to have a reasonable chance at that defense.

My view is that the US baited Putin into this by making repeated overtures about Ukraine joining NATO (while Zelenskyy has himself said that he was told privately it wouldn't be admitted). This happened as Putin repeatedly said that Ukraine's NATO membership was a red line for him. We saw the Cuban Missle Crisis and our reaction. To me, from the Russian perspective, this is akin to Russia making preparations for a deal to put nukes in Tijuana.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces have spent the last 7 or 8 years shelling Russian-speaking Ukrainians in Eastern Ukraine, in violation of the (signed) Minsk accords. This is largely encouraged and participated in by forces that include entire units of Nazi sympathizers. We'd do well to bear in mind that from a uniquely Russian perspective, Nazism is often associated as much with being anti-Russian as it is anti-Jewish.

Then we have leaked audio of US politicians (Victoria Nuland) hand picking the Ukrainian leadership after the 2014 coup that appears to have been backed by the US, and the far-right Nazi groups, to oust their democratically-elected (pro-Russian) president. I won't even get into the Hunter Biden stuff except to say that the NYT recently said his laptop was real.

In sum, what Russia is doing is probably a war crime (war of aggression) and the whole situation is tragic. The US shares a lot of the blame, has done nothing but stoke the flames which is destroying Ukraine rather than push to broker a peace deal that includes the Ukrainian neutrality it had decided on anyway. The lack of open discussion about any of these issues is disheartening. I'm suspicious that the narrative being pushed by the US media has a lot more to do with the arms industry than a moral judgement by the US, which is shown through other ongoing conflicts (Yemen, Somalia) not to exist.

[samastur]

It's comments like this that probably result in people accusing of being pro-Russia.

You skip over annexation of Crimea and gas-rich parts of Ukraine, over Putin's rant how Ukraine shouldn't be a country, how all those new NATO countries don't have nukes stationed in them and the whole European NATO standing army is not larger than Russia's. And to top of it all, you think it's a complicated legal issue if a country that wasn't attacked or was about to attacks another one.

[user3939382]

> you think it's a complicated legal issue if a country that wasn't attacked or was about to attacks another one

It is. Look up Article 51 of the UN charter. Russia's case is that there was an imminent attack on its sovereign ally. As I said, I don't think that would hold up, but it's a logical argument. "Country wasn't attacked" is not how this law works.

> annexation of Crimea

I have a similar opinion there, which is that Russia was on a poor legal footing for that action, although did proffer a defense, but that the US played a large role in that happening. Recall that simultaneous with that conflict was Ukraine's democratically-elected president being overthrown in a violent coup that by all appearances was backed by the US.

> Putin's rant how Ukraine shouldn't be a country

I didn't comment on that because I've never heard that. I'd have to read his comments to comment myself.

> those new NATO countries don't have nukes stationed in them

If the point here is that NATO participation isn't a threat to Russia, I would just say that of course it is, or the US wouldn't have expanded it.

> the whole European NATO standing army is not larger than Russia's

Germany just said they're increasing their defense budget to 100B euros.

There's a deeper issue here by the way, which is that I'm simply not going to continue to go along with the line that I and, I see, my entire country has been fed my entire life, that America #1, and we're the good guys, and everyone else who doesn't do exactly what we say are the bad guys, and be told who I have to hate and who needs a righteous war to straighten them out.

Every single hot military conflict the US has been involved in in my lifetime has turned out to be immoral, wrong, based on lies, or best-case scenario, absolutely none of our business and not something we should have been involved in. I have zero trust in anything the government, or the media they appear to control, has to say at this point.

[supramouse]

minsk and minsk ii were designed to fail, there's no way either the russian supported separatists or ukraine would abide by them not to mention that russia didn't uphold it's end of the frameworks anyway

the russian idea of 'ukrainian neutrality' would require the US to formally reject the idea of a nations right to self-determination to satisfy the demands of a state that isn't even a peer or on good terms which isn't going to fly it weakens the united states and europe

the rest is minutia, blowback, corruption and handwaving at the end of day this is the stupid game russian leadership setup and wanted to play

[LudwigNagasena]

Revealing hypocrisy and bad faith = whataboutism?

[revscat]

> I've been accused several times recently of believing "Russian propaganda" about the war in Ukraine which of course I find very offensive.

When and by whom?

[SkinTaco]

Interesting, I wasn't aware there was any ambiguity. To be honest I'm not really paying any attention to it though.

What kinds of reasons (valid or invalid) is Russia giving? Are there actually nazis in Ukraine?

[pclmulqdq]

There are Nazis in Ukraine, see the Azov Battalion for example. There have been several instances where western media has picked up pictures of Ukranian fighters and readers have pointed out Nazi symbols on their uniforms.

That said, I don't think even the Russians thought this war was about "De-nazification" despite that being the official line. Their focus has been on taking over the Donbas region and securing utilities for Crimea (another stated purpose of the war).

Also, it's worth pointing out that we in the west think of Nazis as primarily being anti-semitic, but Russians think of them as primarily anti-Russian, so claiming to be fighting Nazis is a good line to get popular support in Russia.

[stormbrew]

While the Azov Batallion is definitely a concerning and real thing, it's worth noting that Ukraine's president is Jewish. It's a particularly twisted sort of irony to talk of "de-nazifying" a country while also trying to assassinate its Jewish president.

[decremental]

Yeah, they call themselves the Azov Battalion. They're open about it. Whether or not that's an actual concern of Russia is debeatable but the nazi presence in Ukraine has been largely suppressed by our media so as to not taint the narrative of good vs. evil. As you can imagine it's a very inconvenient truth.

[mickotron]

And there aren’t any White Supremacist or Nazi groups in Russia that have influence? Or the US? Or Poland, France? Should they all get invaded? It’s a smokescreen, dude.

[shkkmo]

The Azov Battalion is an officially sanctioned ukranian military unit that has been directly involved in fighting pro-russian forces and potentially been involved in war crimes documented by the UN.

They absolutely don't justify the invasion of Ukraine and are a smokescreen, but that doesn't mean that they aren't problematic. There is a reason the US blocked military aid to them in 2018.

[hajile]

Like many things, the reaction can both be understandable and completely wrong. Russia has many reasons to invade, but that doesn't make it moral or right.

Meanwhile, there were stories about the Ukrainian rampant Neo-Nazi problem right up until the past few months when everyone is now suddenly supposed to be okay with the idea.

Remember, the Ukrainian Nazis had their own SS divisions (around 90k troops) and butchered countless Jews, Poles, Russians, etc. The US snuck out the Nazi leadership ahead of Russia's takeover because the US had made a deal with the devil in an attempt to counter the USSR under Stalin.

While the Nazis were punished and reviled in every other country you can name, they were never purged or hated the same way in Ukraine where they wrapped themselves up in Nationalistic "freedom fighter" rhetoric. If they ever gain power, they'll be just like ISIS or Nazis of old going around butchering dissenters and undesirables of all kinds.

The enemy of my enemy isn't necessarily my friend.

[decremental]

I didn't suggest otherwise or express any interest in the justification for invasion. Merely noted that it's real and that out of convenience is ignored to drive a narrative. The same media will ignore nazis in Ukraine while simultaneously declaring that white nationalism is the greatest threat to democracy in America.

Propaganda is used heavily by all sides and the only thing you can do is recognize that and hopefully see through it.

[tigershark]

Yeah, strangely I never saw someone speaking about the evil Azov battalion ever mention the Wagner group.

[exogeny]

I think it's more that than no one sane would consider the presence of Nazis as justification for Russian slaughtering innocent civilians.

[saalweachter]

... so I'm missing something here, what's wrong with the name "Azov battalion"? I assumed that was just in reference to the Sea of Azov, is there something more insidious there I did not know about?