81–90 of 827 posts
[flagged]
Which terrorist groups, specifically? And what support are they offering specifically? You say provide tools for communication. Presumably that's every communication platform worldwide - almost undoubtably some sort of terrorist has used each of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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 a…
You see it everywhere.
[flagged]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kronstadt_rebellion
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
Furthermore, these organisations operate in what they perceive to be Fascist and/or Capitalist societies, so why state opposition to something that is not "there" and has been pretty much gone from the global scene for nearly forty years?
In conclusion, yes, you have a point. But given the reasons above I find it really hard to get worked up over it and Anarchists do not generally get along with Leninists, Stalinists, or Maoists anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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 m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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 m…
>careful, if you start going after neutral infrastructure providers, that means google, amazon, microsoft, meta, and more will also need to go.
No, because they actively respond to removal request. Open by default, supporting request for removal.
The difference comes in when you are open by default and tell the US to fuck off when they ask you to stop supporting terror groups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Their own manifesto says they use their limited resources to support groups they align with. Woah, with radical statements like that, we might have to go after mutual aid groups, PACs, and churches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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.
Could have been a false flag to discredit antifa. What happened to safe harbor?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 m…
To be explicitly clear, a "neutral infrastructure provider" does not describe A/I so your scenario is hypothetical. >careful, if you start going after neutral infrastructure providers, that means google, amazon, microsoft, meta, and more will also need to go. No, because they actively respond to removal request. Open by default, supporting request for removal. The difference comes in when you are open by default and…
i am replying specifically to your comments about neutral providers (that's why i quoted the part of your comment that i did)
>No, because they actively respond to removal request.
there is still orders of magnitude more conversations going through the providers i mentioned, related to terrorism/csam/etc., which is simply not reported or not known. right now, meta is facilitating significantly more terrorism than a/i.
in any case, this isn't really about terrorism. they've just overused the child-safety angle lately, and needed to drum up some anti-privacy/anti-encryption using the terrorism card.
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]