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

151–160 of 846 posts

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

#151

Post by john_strinlai »

tptacek wrote: post #147
john_strinlai wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

okay, great. we can do this together. lets start with this: how many terrorists do you think a/i has helped?

Wait, is this the right analysis? WhatsApp doesn't enter into any kind of agreement with organizations using it about their political alignment or objectives. The allegation (I have no idea how valid it is) is that A/I does.

upthread, nonethewiser said "They aren't some neutral infrastructure provider. __And even if they were that doesn't mean the US shouldn't sanction them for supporting terrorism.__"

emphasis mine. my assertion is that whatsapp, a neutral provider, facilitates more terrorists than a/i. i.e., the US should consider sanctioning them, if we are to follow nonethewiser's recommendation.

(to be clear, i'm on the pro-privacy, pro-encryption side, and don't actually think the US should be sanctioning whatsapp)

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

#152

Post by inigyou »

nonethewiser wrote: post #86
jszymborski wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You miss the point. It establishes they aren't neutral. Of course it's not necessarily bad to support things you agree with.

Amazon also only supports groups it aligns with.

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

#153

Post by inigyou »

bjourne wrote: post #127
nonethewiser wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Are we going after free speech now?

The USA has never had free speech. There's not one time in its history when the government wasn't trying to force people it disagreed with to shut up.

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

#154

Post by inigyou »

nonethewiser wrote: post #141
bjourne wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we going after free speech now?

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project ruled that knowingly providing material support to designated terrorist organizations is not protected by the first amendment. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/1 But I'm curious about your take on this. How would you argue the first amendment protects this?

So it's trivial that if you are the government and you want to arrest someone for speech, you first call them a terrorist organisation and then you can arrest them for speech? Ridiculous.

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

#157

Post by tptacek »

john_strinlai wrote: post #151
tptacek wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, is this the right analysis? WhatsApp doesn't enter into any kind of agreement with organizations using it about their political alignment or objectives. The allegation (I have no idea how valid it is) is that A/I does.

upthread, nonethewiser said "They aren't some neutral infrastructure provider. __And even if they were that doesn't mean the US shouldn't sanction them for supporting terrorism.__" emphasis mine. my assertion is that whatsapp, a neutral provider, facilitates more terrorists than a/i. i.e., the US should consider sanctioning them, if we are to follow nonethewiser's recommendation. (to be clear, i'm on the pro-privacy,…

Right, I get that. I'm also not taking a position on this (in particular, the PKK seems like a Europe problem, not a US problem, and if Europe doesn't care I don't see why we should.)

But the analysis isn't based on "which service enables more terrorists". By that logic, forget WhatsApp, forget Signal; Google Mail probably runs the table in absolute numbers. But all three of those services assist terrorists without any deliberation or really even actual knowledge on the part of the providers.

The claim is that A/I can't say the same thing.

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

#158

Post by john_strinlai »

ktm5j wrote: post #144
john_strinlai wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if the argument is harm reduction and reducing the overall incidence of terrorism, my argument flies.

Removing all the oxygen from our atmosphere would kill 100% of terrorists, that's a good strategy too right?

indeed, that would be a very effective way to reduce terrorism to 0.
Post reply on HN