Am I right to assume what Meta would adhere to the same principles in any other similar case? Eg (countries and nationalities are work of fiction and are the products of the author's imagination):
$string = 'Two weeks into $country1's war in $country2, a Meta spokesperson said on Thursday the company had temporarily eased its rules for political speech, allowing posts such as "death to the $nationality invaders," although it would not allow calls for violence against $nationality civilians'
$country1 = 'Russia', 'US, 'Israel', 'UAE'
$country2 = 'Ukraine', 'Iraq', 'Palestine', 'Yemen'
$nationality = 'Russian', 'American', 'Israeli', 'Saudi'
foreach ($i in 0..3) {...}
In my own personal opinion a company what decides what some people, chosen by some arbitrary attributes, are more equal than others can never claim to have a better moral principles than some $country Ministry of Truth.
> would adhere to the same principles in any other similar case?
Consistency isn’t the paramount principle in a moral system. If you have a compulsion for kicking babies, controlling that impulse most of the time is better than going hog wild on a kindergarten because you lost control once.
Facebook is an awful company. But it’s doing the right thing here. That action commendable, even if it’s doer is usually not.
No, its just likely that the moral system isn't 100% consistent and that's OK in meat-based systems because any system that was 100% consistent would be horrifying, ineffective, or too complex for any meat brain to understand.
Do you have any examples of any moral system that doesn’t contradict itself logically somewhere? I haven’t run across one.
Near as I can tell, there often fundamentally HAS to be a logical contradiction somewhere, or unsupported assertion which conflicts
with some objective fact sometimes.
