Your topic’s a false premise. First of all it’s totally valid to criticize someone for something that couldn’t apply in the current situation, because what’s being criticized is the decisions and attitudes that their actions reveal.

Meta’s refusal to moderate a website they control after multiple warnings that it was being used to incite genocide speaks to their institutional values, accountability, and culture.

By contrast, plenty of instance owners have shown responsibility, accountability, and good faith about admins moderating the instances they control.

try to be accurate and concise.

Lol that’s condescending, and it’s also a bit offputting. I come here to bloviate thank you very much. :)

The thing is though, I’m not part of the wider conversation about facebook above. You glommed onto a very simple, very specific point I made to someone else about the human impact of social media incitements to genocide.

What Meta did to the ICC isn’t even related to my above link (which is about the Tigray genocide, not the Myanmar genocide). But it’s well-documented, and I’m not interested in rehashing it here.