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

61–70 of 831 posts

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

#61

Post by GolfPopper »

mindslight wrote: post #46

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…

The current United States government is very keen on pushing the idea that there is a vast and shadowy international left-wing conspiracy waging war on it.

This is, to be clear, lying nonsense.

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

#62

Post by hamburga »

As far as I can tell, there were no credible criminal charges against this group, except that they are effective organizers on the opposite side of political spectrum. In the White House’s deranged logic, this qualifies them to be officially designated as domestic terrorists [1].

Can we all agree that this is an assault on the First Amendment?

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/desi...

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

#63

Post by nonethewiser »

iamnothere wrote: post #45

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?

[flagged]

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

#64

Post by tptacek »

jasonlotito wrote: post #24
tptacek wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My understanding is that this is only coming from the US government. Do we have any reliable information to back this up? Because if it's just the US government, I can safely assume it's all lies.

I have no idea, but --- non-normatively --- there is some signal to be gleaned from this particular provider being targeted and not other, better-known and more systemically important ones.

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

#65

Post by agentcoops »

tptacek wrote: post #52
agentcoops wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

I share most HN'ers priors about this administration and its motives and am commenting positively, not normatively, and only about the specific claim the Treasury Department made. Signal doesn't knowingly and deliberately provide services to any organization, let alone one formally designated by the US and the EU. The whole point of Signal is to eliminate all pretenses of the service knowing who its users are or what…

Yes, I originally only meant to note that in the extended statement on a/I the PKK isn’t mentioned and the focus is rather on a network of “antifa” groups [0]. With respect to your legal point, I reread the document and we’re in agreement: the state department goes to lengths to demonstrate that a/I “manually vets all potential users.”

[0] https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...

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

#66

Post by hexator »

nonethewiser wrote: post #59
badsectoracula wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is quite long, but these two give a brief idea of what is going on: a) According to that article, what it seems they are about: > Its manifesto describes the project in explicitly political terms. A/I is antifascist, anti-capitalist and antimilitarist. It promotes free software, encryption, pseudonymity and the independent circulation of knowledge and cultural work. It reserves its limited, volunteer-run…

[flagged]

Is there any indication or proof that they are providing services to PKK? Equating supporting protest organizers in the west with supporting an armed terrorist group is laughable and dangerous.

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

#67

Post by nonethewiser »

kraken_cult wrote: post #54
iamnothere wrote: post #45

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?

Isn't it just as likely they are using facebook, instagram, and tiktok?

[flagged]

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

#68

Post by john_strinlai »

nonethewiser wrote: post #63
iamnothere wrote: post #45

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?

[flagged]

>And even if they were that doesn't mean the US shouldn't sanction them for supporting terrorism.

careful, if you start going after neutral infrastructure providers, that means google, amazon, microsoft, meta, and more will also need to go. i guarantee more terrorism-related content is discussed via those providers than a/i.

we should probably also go after internet service providers, too. maybe the companies that make the fiber optics?

(has anyone checked who is providing terrorists with electricity?)

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

#69

Post by jpcfl »

Avicebron wrote: post #3

I clicked around a bit, read the manifesto, I still have no idea what these people do. I guess they claim to have been around for a while, but a bunch of the links don't work and the manifesto has definitely been updated to reflect 2026 opinions. What is this?

It is intentionally vague. From the State Dept:

> The A/I Collective exclusively offers its tools and services to radical left-wing actors and manually vets all potential users for ideological affinity before granting them access to its infrastructure.

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

#70

Post by 32aGh »

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]

They should have hosted for Al Qaida and ISIS. Then they would have been invited to the White House and been sprayed with perfume by Trump:

https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/11/12/donald-trump-ahmed-al...

"Al-Sharaa, who until recently was known by his alias "al-Julani," was a longtime jihadist who was part of the ranks of organizations associated with al-Qaida and ISIS, and even orchestrated an attack against Israel – milestones that led to his designation as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" by the US, with a reward of approximately $10 million for information leading to his capture. President Trump decided to lift the sanctions on al-Sharaa, who has transformed into a political leader following the collapse of the Assad regime in December, when he assumed Syria's presidency as the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham."

Post reply on HN