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

261–270 of 854 posts

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

#261

Post by shevy-java »

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?

> targeting of infrastructure providers as “terrorists” is unprecedented

It is not unprecedented though. The US military empire always was supported by the business empire and corruption empire. Trump and his BigBro Epstein party-goers just make it much more obvious. In reality the terrorists are in the US government primarily.

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

#262

Post by r053bud »

TiredOfLife wrote: post #244
bsian wrote: post #196

In threads about the Russian war if you mention that the US has done worse your comments are removed and people complain about "whataboutism". In this thread, on the other hand, people keep bringing up that the US has done worse but those comments are upvoted and there is no mention of "whataboutism" in the entire thread.

> US has done worse They have not.

They have.

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

#263

Post by vorpalhex »

KPGv2 wrote: post #234
graemep wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damaging property for political ends has been part of the definition in the UK, and I think the US, for decades. I would say the case for targetting military equipment is stronger than for damaging most other things. > This is simply armed conflict. Armed conflict by residents and citizens against the state is usually a serious criminal offense everywhere.

> Damaging property for political ends Damaging military equipment is a military end, not a political one. If it were otherwise, then a military attacking a military would definitionally be terrorism. At that point, you've removed the utility of the word "terrorism" from English and made it synonymous with "armed conflict." Terrorism being done chiefly to change policies by terrorizing people through symbolic acts is…

I suppose the UK could declare Palestine Action as combatants and hunt them down and shoot them.. but that doesn't seem very uh, appropriate. I sort of prefer them being arrested and going through courts.

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

#264

Post by xdennis »

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…

[flagged]

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

#266

Post by nomadpenguin »

antonvs wrote: post #254
xg15 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the logic of Jack Bauer taken to the end. "Come on, it's obvious who the bad guys are, who needs rules?" until suddenly it's not obvious anymore...

My conspiracy theory is that "24" was funded by the CIA (etc.) to build public support for measures like the Patriot Act. "24" debuted 11 days after the Patriot Act became law, so they were being worked on at the same time.

Is that even a conspiracy? It's well documented how closely the military works with Hollywood -- of course government apparatuses are interested in funding media that aligns with their goals.

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

#267

Post by colechristensen »

logological wrote: post #250
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?

This is hardly unprecedented -- in fact, it looks like the US government has learned a thing or two from the anti-spam community. If you actually want to block e-mail or newsgroup spam at its source, you don't complain to the spammer themselves, but rather to their mail/news provider, and if that doesn't work, you escalate the issue to the upstream provider, the hosting company for the spammer's website, the registra…

There is a balance that needs to be struck between freedoms and rule of law and it's quite rare to be able to actually have discussions about how to strike that balance because most folks willing to discuss have a simplistic but vaguely absolute position favoring one extreme or another and can never come to the point of deciding of where to draw the lines of enough freedom or enough control.

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

#268

Post by iza »

someguydave wrote: post #192
mrtesthah wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you think many banks worldwide would enjoy declaring themselves the enemies of the US government in order to assist left-wing lunatics?

You misplaced "lunatics" in your sentence, though sadly the likely answer remains the same.

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

#269

Post by mindslight »

CMay wrote: post #143
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]

We've got a billionaire funded conspiracy openly ignoring the Constitution, wantonly trashing our American liberties, and yet you're still raging about "communist billionaires" ?

The politics of billionaires as a group is not leftism, nor is it rightism. The politics of billionaires is self-serving authoritarianism. From each camp, they pick the sides of issues that stand to increase their own power, taking stakes in them as if they are horses. They will gladly support woke groupthink as long as it's getting results, and then readily switch to supporting anti-woke groupthink when society has had enough and the winds shift.

The net effects from both phases are losses from our individual liberty, which have been accumulating for decades, and are presumably the source of your rightful anger. But please come to your senses!

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

#270

Post by rileymat2 »

CMay wrote: post #143
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]

Google says the Chinese military budget is 281 billion. They probably get lower cost labor and production, but that’s significantly lower than the United States.

Adjusting for Purchasing Parity, an imperfect measure, that still only like 600 billion, significantly lower than the United States.

Post reply on HN