Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

inventati.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 836 posts

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#41

Post by adjejmxbdjdn »

mmaunder wrote: post #35
mrtesthah wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They host blogs and digital infrastructure for autonomous anarchist/leftist collectives and are deeply connected to global free speech movements since their founding in 2001. If you expect to see a two sentence mission statement or a product summary, you’re going to be disappointed.

[flagged]

From HN guidelines:

> Off topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.

So you’re incorrect. HN isn’t off bounds for all political posts, but yes, they do have to have an “interesting new phenomenon”.

The U.S. sanctioning a decades old technology collective is clearly new. Whether it’s “interesting” I can’t speak to because that’s subjective to every individual, but that’s where the useful voting system comes in.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#42

Post by john_strinlai »

nonethewiser wrote: post #39
napolux wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autistici/Inventati is an Italian collective, active since around 2001, that runs free digital services for activists, grassroots groups and anyone who wants to communicate without being profiled. It provides email accounts, mailing lists, blogs, websites, chat and VPN access.

[flagged]

that would technically fall under the definition of "anyone", yes...

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#43

Post by 4MOAisgoodenuf »

ecshafer wrote: post #16

[flagged]

In the United States, your example is explicitly protected by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. It is the legal defense of arms manufacturers who's product is sold legally and in good faith but is used by a third-party for illegal actions.

Rather than a vague insinuation that this group has taken some action deserving of economic blackballing, perhaps you could point to some specific action this group has done?

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#44

Post by InsideOutSanta »

mmaunder wrote: post #35
mrtesthah wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They host blogs and digital infrastructure for autonomous anarchist/leftist collectives and are deeply connected to global free speech movements since their founding in 2001. If you expect to see a two sentence mission statement or a product summary, you’re going to be disappointed.

[flagged]

> For the majority of organizations one can tell what they do in a few seconds

Have you ever opened the website of any B2B software/services provider? By your logic, they're all the most suspicious people on earth, because none of them seem to be able to explain what they actually do.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#45

Post by iamnothere »

Everyone’s missing the big picture here which is that this targeting of infrastructure providers as “terrorists” is unprecedented and concerning: https://decode39.com/16319/autistici-inventati-case-sets-a-n...

If a radical group sets up shop on I2P, are I2P users and devs now terrorists? This is a problem.

What about Monero users/devs? Veilid? Tox? Signal?

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#46

Post by mindslight »

Keep in mind we're talking about communications services here, and one focusing on political speech at that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In general I think the free lunch of centrally hosted services and persistent doxxable identities is nearing a close. It was inevitable that governments would meddle more, and more, and more - implicitly treating communications are something other than speech due to how encompassing the digital world has become - and now here we are.

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#49

Post by mrtesthah »

nonethewiser wrote: post #39
napolux wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autistici/Inventati is an Italian collective, active since around 2001, that runs free digital services for activists, grassroots groups and anyone who wants to communicate without being profiled. It provides email accounts, mailing lists, blogs, websites, chat and VPN access.

[flagged]

Is that more, or less, than the 1.2 million people Musk has killed so far with the illegal dismantlement of USAID? Musk aggressively advocates for the forcible ethnic cleansing of Europe.

I see people posting links to x.com which he uses to promote those views as well as platform other hate groups calling for violence and genocide against immigrants, trans people, etc.

Do acts gain moral validity under color of law alone?

Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

#50

Post by agentcoops »

tptacek wrote: post #20
ecshafer wrote: post #16

[flagged]

Without judging this or trying to axiomatically derive the logic, I think the claim here is that a/I knowingly and deliberately provides services to the PKK, which the US and the EU designate as a terrorist organization.

It’s more than that, I think. I read through the various government statements as I was curious about rationale and precedent: the other two groups impacted by the order are rather unambiguous extremists, so understandable. In the extended justification for this a/I group, the US gov lists a large number of US and EU “Antifa” groups that variously leverage their services, including one that the individual recently arrested for wiping his phone is meant to be connected to. It suggests to me this was the result of some considerable network analysis and that the intent is to now have stronger legal tools to go after those groups.

I think that second (speculative, of course) step would be the more worrying precedent: if the use of technical infrastructure also used by designated groups was formally made to be incriminating/right-waiving. Why wouldn’t that apply to Signal, for example? The OP suggests the dividing line should be between true infrastructure open to all, including unsavory actors, versus tools that advertise services to a particular faction. It’s not an entirely disagreeable distinction, but I think in practice it’s rather fuzzy (Moxie of signal is/was rather far left himself, if I recall).

EDIT: Re-reading the document, the state department emphasizes that a/I “manually vets all potential users.” OP’s distinction stands for now.

Post reply on HN