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

161–170 of 817 posts

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

#161

Post by r721 »

Marha01 wrote: post #149
deaux wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Would you say that about Amazon who supports the US regime, which is in the business of bombing Iranian schoolgirls? Is that less terrorist? Strictly speaking, unintended collateral damage of civilians in a war does not fulfill the definition of terrorism. The attack on Iranian school was to the best of my knowledge a mistake stemming from old intel. Terrorism is deliberate attack on civilians to achieve a politica…

>The attack on Iranian school was to the best of my knowledge a mistake stemming from old intel.

Bloomberg piece on this topic:

>An Analyst’s Missed Remark Surfaced in Deadly Iran School Strike Probe

>An analyst's missed remarks and US intelligence systems that weren’t connected to one another are among the missteps that investigators have surfaced while probing the cause of a missile strike on an Iranian school that killed an estimated 120 children, people familiar with the matter said.

>Years before the US attacked Iran at the end of February, an intelligence analyst examining information about potential future strike targets in Iran noticed changes at a site the US had previously characterized as a naval facility belonging to the elite wing of the Iranian military in Minab city in the southeast of the country. It was, in fact, now an elementary school.

>The analyst remarked on changes at the site in a digital intelligence tool, but that tool wasn’t linked up to the official intelligence database that the US uses to develop strike targets and the information was never conveyed to military commanders, according to people familiar with the matter who declined to be named discussing sensitive matters.

https://archive.is/LNMMf

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

#162

Post by inigyou »

nonethewiser wrote: post #138
GolfPopper wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

I support PKK because I run an IPFS node and I'm sure at least one person connected to PKK has uploaded at least one thing to IPFS at least one time. What's with you and your obsession with PKK? You probably support them too through some equally convoluted mechanism, but you're all over this thread saying anyone with any connection must be terminated.

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

#163

Post by john_strinlai »

tptacek wrote: post #157
john_strinlai wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

from this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49479169 on, i was talking about the neutral providers and the claim that neutral providers should also be subject to sanctions.

>without any deliberation or really even actual knowledge on the part of the providers.

i think we agree that this is an implicit requirement of being considered a neutral provider.

so, to claim neutral providers should be subject to sanctions implies that a provider who does not know or purposefully facilitate terrorists should still be subject to sanctions (gmail, whatsapp, signal, amazon, etc.)

then we got sidetracked by me being asked how can i possibly know that meta/google/etc. facilitate more terrorists than a/i. which i, and seemingly you, agree is a pretty obvious answer given the scale of the organizations. and i was asked to "walk them through that".

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

#164

Post by inigyou »

hamburga wrote: post #62

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...

The first amendment only applies inside the US. The US is allowed to cancel the speech of foreigners.

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

#165

Post by dirasieb »

john_strinlai wrote: post #68
nonethewiser wrote: post #63

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…

except they aren't neutral, which is the whole point

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

#167

Post by quickthrowman »

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?

I checked for an official PKK YouTube channel. I found that they don’t have one as they’re a designated foreign terrorist organization* and Google complies with that designation by not allowing them an official presence. Unsure about the others but I doubt any of those companies would allow an official account. Probably individuals that belong to that group have accounts but I don’t know that for sure.

* I did not make the designation, I know nothing about the PKK, I am only referencing it.

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

#168

Post by georgemcbay »

Marha01 wrote: post #149
deaux wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Would you say that about Amazon who supports the US regime, which is in the business of bombing Iranian schoolgirls? Is that less terrorist? Strictly speaking, unintended collateral damage of civilians in a war does not fulfill the definition of terrorism. The attack on Iranian school was to the best of my knowledge a mistake stemming from old intel. Terrorism is deliberate attack on civilians to achieve a politica…

> The attack on Iranian school was to the best of my knowledge a mistake stemming from old intel.

A mistake in a completely unjust war.

And what about the fishing boats we are bombing in the Caribbean and the Pacific? Not even the pretense of a legitimate war in that situation.

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

#169

Post by inigyou »

mrtesthah wrote: post #72
criddell wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The consequences may include the loss of: • Bank accounts and payment processing. • U.S.-linked donations and fundraising services. • Hosting, cloud infrastructure and upstream network services. • Domain registration and related technical services. • Certificate, security and email-delivery accounts. • Software and communications services. • Relationships with non-U.S. providers frightened by American secondary sanct…

My question now is whether European hosting providers sprouting up in the face of the US CLOUD act will step up to provide those services.

No, because they don't want to be banned from banks. With few exceptions, the US has power over all global financial systems. Also tier 1 ISPs (even the European ones), which trickles down to all ISPs.

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

#170

Post by dirasieb »

dam_jackalopes wrote: post #116
ecshafer wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They provide services to PKK which is a terrorist group, specifically.

The PKK is in the process of disarming. If this decision is based on the PKK specifically, the timing seems strange.

so you admit they are still armed
Post reply on HN