What does it entail, in practice? They are sanctioned, okay, and? What happens practically.
U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
101–110 of 838 posts
Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
#102For those like me who don't have context, here is the New York Times article on this recent news / event https://archive.fo/e8Gss > The State Department on Wednesday designated three groups based in Europe, including two that advocate Palestinian rights, as transnational terrorist organizations. > The move is part of the Trump administration’s fight against what it calls a “resurgence of far-left political terrorism”…
Palestine Action has been designated a terrorist group in the UK as well after sabotaging military aircraft (the article says they sprayed paint, but does not say it was sprayed inside jet engines, rendering them inoperable). Masar Badil supports "armed struggle". One of the other groups ("hammer") recently designated a terrorist group (and linked to A/I Collective in another article I read ) got its name by attackin…
> I think its likely they do have sympathy for violent groups
The US regime is an extremely violent group, so I that's certainly the issue.
Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
#103[flagged]
Clueless.
Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To be explicitly clear, a "neutral infrastructure provider" does not describe A/I so your scenario is hypothetical. 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…
[flagged]
>So no one knows about these conversations but you know there are orders of magnitude more? Walk me through that.
sure. whatsapp is used by literal billions of people. add in a few more billion people through facebook, instagram, gmail, outlook, amazon.
would you like me to walk through the statistics calculations? or can you extrapolate from the billions of users? now make a guess how many people a/i has facilitated. a few thousand? a hundred thousand?
>Even if that were true how would that change anything? They still comply with the US government and their mission statement isn't to empower, protect, support political extremists.
because it demonstrates that the goal is not to curtail terrorism.
Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
#105Earlier 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…
All the providers you mention here work with the US government in situations where their platforms are being used by terrorist organizations. It sounds like the a/i folks are specifically offering free services to a militant group, so that's why they're being sanctioned. I don't think your argument flies.
Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> If they choose to support the PKK, which the EU, UK, and US have all deemed a terrorist organization for over 20 years, then of course the US should sanction them and they have no moral ground to stand on. No moral ground to stand on? Would you say that about Amazon who supports the US regime, which is in the business of bombing Iranian schoolgirls? Is that less terrorist? This collective of course has much more of…
[flagged]
Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
#107Earlier 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…
All the providers you mention here work with the US government in situations where their platforms are being used by terrorist organizations. It sounds like the a/i folks are specifically offering free services to a militant group, so that's why they're being sanctioned. I don't think your argument flies.
if the argument is harm reduction and reducing the overall incidence of terrorism, my argument flies.
Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> So no one knows about these conversations but you know there are orders of magnitude more? Walk me through that. sure. whatsapp is used by literal billions of people. add in a few more billion people through facebook, instagram, gmail, outlook, amazon. would you like me to walk through the statistics calculations? or can you extrapolate from the billions of users? now make a guess how many people a/i has facilitate…
>would you like me to walk through the statistics calculations?
yes
Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
#109Earlier 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…
All the providers you mention here work with the US government in situations where their platforms are being used by terrorist organizations. It sounds like the a/i folks are specifically offering free services to a militant group, so that's why they're being sanctioned. I don't think your argument flies.
[flagged]
Re: U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective
#110[flagged]
[flagged]