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

171–180 of 856 posts

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

#171

Post by alexgieg »

nonethewiser wrote: post #122
mindslight wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we are talking about a communications service , one specifically focusing on political speech . " 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. " Email, chat, websites, blogs - these are a…

There is the absolutely perfect Supreme Court case that ruled against your theory. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/1 There is a law (18 U.S.C. § 2339B) that says you cant knowingly provide material support for designated foreign terrorist organizations. A law firm wanted to provide financial support and legal services to some, including the PKK (the same group A/I wa…

US courts have made many decisions that go against the US Constitution. This is an example. Notice the US Constitution says Congress cannot do that, period. And it doesn't limit that only to laws concerning US citizens, differently from other articles and amendments that explicitly say this is for citizens only, and that for non-citizens. And yet, the many SCOTUS incarnations look at that and go "naaah!" because reasons.

That's why the US Constitution Americans know is a few pages long, while the one actual US judges, lawyers etc. use is a massive 3,000 pages long volume. That's what it takes to rhetorically weasel oneself away from most of what those few initial pages do say.

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

#173

Post by mdp2021 »

xienze wrote: post #136
OKRainbowKid wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So anti-fascism ist deemed an extreme movement by the US government? What does that say about them?

[flagged]

Do review your logic.

Now since "potential" is not a crime, list the acts that merit the label.

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

#175

Post by zmgsabst »

inigyou wrote: post #150
Marha01 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

What about intended collateral damage?

I don’t think it was intended.

I think that when you’re bombing thousands of targets, a 0.1-1% targeting error rate leads to dozens of unintended collateral hits (and thousands of civilians dead) — and is among the many reasons wars are horrific.

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

#176

Post by mdp2021 »

gwbas1c wrote: post #17
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?

Did you click on https://www.inventati.org/about ? (I also tried reading the manifesto first.) From it: > We support individuals, collectives, communities and groups whose political and social activities fit within this worldview and who share with us some fundamental principles: anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-militarism I suspect they have some "not mainstream" political views; although I think underst…

> some "not mainstream" political views

I would say they are pretty "mainstream" (or very widespread) in some territories. I have seen bartenders wearing those 'anti-' terms on their t-shirts at work.

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

#178

Post by inigyou »

foul wrote: post #134
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?

It is not unprecedented, but a lot of fools lauded moves like this when these kind of instruments were used with barely a legal net around them against islamic terrorism or cybercrime. I'm not crying for no Al-Qaeda or 8chan, mind you. In this very year UN and ICJ officials have been targeted in a similar fashion though. When the pax americana ends like this, I don't know what else is needed for EU and Asia to raise…

I think the same people who opposed a/i sanctions (not AI sanctions but they're really missing out by not exploiting that confusion) also opposed sanctions for """islamic terrorism""" and for """cybercrime""".

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

#179

Post by inigyou »

tptacek wrote: post #80
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?

If you have real operational security concerns, your provider shouldn't know anything about you; should in fact have bilateral shielding between themselves and you to prevent either counterparty from learning stuff. That's how Signal works.

Impossible for a public thing though, noblogs.org will always be traceable to where noblogs.org is hosted because that's how the packets get there.

You can maintain much better opsec in a two way communication than a broadcast.

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

#180

Post by zmgsabst »

inigyou wrote: post #159
gnuplustoejam wrote: post #124

[flagged]

Do you see how a removal from a private app store, while bad, is different from an arrest or a sanction?

Parler experienced a government coordinated shutdown across app stores and infrastructure providers like AWS.

I’m not sure what distinction you’re trying to make, when their infrastructure (AWS) was shut off due to the government labeling them terrorists due to some users (who Parler had banned) using the service.

Post reply on HN