The Facebook scandal and American double standards

Do the Iraqis have the right to raise the slogan of death to American soldiers, former President George Bush and those who came after him, on social media, because they invaded their country and occupied their land, and displaced them in various parts of the world, killing more than a million people? Are they also allowed to apply the same action to the leaders and armies of other countries that participated in the invasion?

Do the Palestinians have the right to curse the Israeli army and raise the slogan of death for them and for all the leaders of Israel since the rape until today, because they stole their land and displaced their people, and killed their children, women and elders? What about the Afghans whose homes, schools, and wedding parties were bombed by the planes of the American invaders? Do they not have the right to write the slogan of death for the US military and the leaders of the White House? Will this right apply retroactively, allowing our brothers in the Maghreb, and all the countries of the Arab Mashreq and the Gulf, to raise the slogan of death to the French and English armies and their leaders who occupied all these countries in the last century?

Answering these questions does not require much thought, because it is not allowed to do so, and the most prominent evidence that is still fresh in memory is what happened a few weeks ago, when a number of Arab journalists were dismissed from the German channel “Deutsche Welle”, and the reason is their tweets that were said It suggests that they meant Israel. But there is nothing surprising when the free world, which has human values ​​and the right to opinion, allows it to turn social networking sites into a platform for spreading hatred and calling for violence, and to become a means of serving the Western agenda against others, but this act and use does not apply to be against the West and the United States. It is an exclusive right of those against others, so the company Meta, which owns Facebook, came out to announce that subscribers were allowed to publish calls for violence, hatred and murder against the Russian president and Russian forces only, and that it started with the exception of rhetoric against what it described as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, although this company was attending any Content that incites violence, or carries hate speech, as they describe. It was blocking pages, closing accounts, and warning subscribers with clear messages asking them to improve their style of expression, because the content they publish violates the site's policy. So where are the Western standards that they talk about and invite others to abide by, and ask our countries to follow them? What seems clear is that everything that the West was promoting, especially the United States of America, on the subject of freedoms, democracies, opinion and other opinion, freedom of the media, and social networking sites, are just lies and political propaganda, the aim of which was to shed light on a package of bright ideas, verifying the During which a state of intellectual alienation paves the way for accepting the dictatorship of the Western media, leading to making it more like the certainty that people hold on to, so that the people’s heads become just buckets with which they empty what they want, so the criteria they talk about are a liquid state and not a solid state, and they change with the change of the agenda, for example they They tell all social media subscribers that their personal data will not be disposed of outside the context of privacy, but we found four years ago that WhatsApp, before it was owned by Facebook, exposed Facebook and said, that the aforementioned site handed over personal information

The Russian action against Ukraine is aggression and invasion by all political, humanitarian and moral standards, and cannot be described by other descriptions, but discrimination against a specific president in his person, and against a specific country, in this blatant form, and the call to kill them on social media, are calls that fit the context of hypocrisy Western, which allows and does not allow, cancels and fixes, and sets solid standards for this side, and liquid standards for the other side. This is an affirmation that Mata, social networking sites and giant Internet companies all work with a specific approach and not out of thin air, and therefore there are countries, peoples and nations that allow the West to harness all technology and media against them, but in no case can the same measurements apply to the West. It is the right of the Western and American media to say everything they want to say about the Russian president and the Russian army, in their visual, audio and written media. A case, but for this act to be transmitted to social networking sites, this is a completely anomaly, because these are social platforms, or so they are supposed to be, and the registrants in these sites did not give them the right to impose on them a political agenda, giving them a right of what today, and preventing it About them tomorrow, according to the changing of the political compass, then from where did the owners of these sites obtain the right to grant themselves the authority to allow the passage of a certain speech and to ban another? And what are the bases they have adopted in classifying the discourses that this indicates a state of hatred and that that indicates an invitation to violence? According to what dimensions are these standards changed? Certainly, the United States of America will never abandon the repressive trends, which constitute one of the The pillars of its policies with others, there is an American context that is clearly described as a dictatorship that believes in exclusivity and gives itself the status of exceptionalism, imposing conditions and determining the nature of the path, which the world must follow, and even beyond it to control everything that is said in the media, and what people write on the communication sites social. And the policy of the shepherd and the herd will not leave the American political mind, despite the successive setbacks and defeats it has suffered in various parts of the world, the most recent of which was the scandalous defeat in Afghanistan. And Obama, Biden and their armies?

The introduction of social networking sites on the line of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis, and allowing speeches of killing and death to be passed in them against one party over another, destroys the credibility of these platforms and eats away at their popularity. This also strips the character of communication between societies from them, and makes them a platform for spreading certain ideas and promoting a specific ideology. Also, this act removes the legal cover from the companies that own these sites, and gives the right to governments and individuals to sue them, because they did not ask their participants about their opinion of the act they took, but more than that, they turn them into arenas where people compete to present the highest level of hatred, violence and education. them.

Iraqi writer and professor of international relations