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

301–310 of 829 posts

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

#301

Post by cdrnsf »

OKRainbowKid wrote: post #126
badsectoracula wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is quite long, but these two give a brief idea of what is going on: a) According to that article, what it seems they are about: > Its manifesto describes the project in explicitly political terms. A/I is antifascist, anti-capitalist and antimilitarist. It promotes free software, encryption, pseudonymity and the independent circulation of knowledge and cultural work. It reserves its limited, volunteer-run…

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

[flagged]

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

#302

Post by deaux »

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…

Strictly speaking, no. If you're going to play semantics, you first need to define how "unintended" is "unintended". If I drive down the highway at 200mph and get someone killed, is this unintentional? Now what if I do so in a crowded street? If I'm sending a missile at a country, how much effort do I need to put into research to be able to say it was "collateral" damage? If I aim them completely randomly, then what's the verdict?

If you're going to go down the semantics route, every word needs proper inspection. You're focusing on only one of them, "terrorism".

Luckily though, we don't need to; the US does more than enough intentional extrajudicial executions of civilians on its own. Even just considering one particular area where it does them, and then only the ones we know about, we're at about 227 civilian executions in just the last few years [0].

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/10/29/us/us-caribbe...

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

#303

Post by [deleted] »

ktm5j wrote: post #217
john_strinlai wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

indeed, that would be a very effective way to reduce terrorism to 0.

My point is, most people are looking for strategies that actually make sense. Shutting down Google to stop terrorism, even when Google is already cooperating with the US government, makes no sense.

[deleted]

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

#304

Post by rileymat2 »

CMay wrote: post #292
rileymat2 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're vertically integrated so a lot of materials are cheaper. They also steal a lot of technology, so they save a lot of money on having to do the research the US already paid for. Finances alone don't make the military and your argument doesn't change anything I said.

Vertical integration is an interesting claim, because we have been told that the government outsourcing to private companies is more efficient due to competition than the government doing the work themselves.

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

#305

Post by henearkr »

cdrnsf wrote: post #273

This administration is on a witch hunt for anything they can identify as "antifa" when no such central organization insists. Instead it's being used as an over broad label to attack organized opposition to it's broadly unpopular policy agenda. (If you're opposed to antifascists what does that make you?)

Exactly. Antifa is short for "opposed to fascism". Which, you know, is the bad thing where you hurt a lot of people just because they are different from the "group" you defined, with the aim of spoliating the outsiders to enrich the members, or make them an inferior cast, etc...

Having to explain why fascism is to be fought against...

Ugh, what a world. Not even science-fiction writers dared to write such a nonsensical reality.

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

#306

Post by tptacek »

jijijijij wrote: post #253
tptacek wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is about finances. If the US declares you a terrorist organization, you cannot do any banking anymore, even outside the US, since most banks do not want to gamble on SWIFT access. Since the US considers anything "antifa" as terrorism now, it already had most concerning distant effects last year. See GLS bank cancelling Rote Hilfe in Germany. 1933 was the last time Rote Hilfe was cancelled, btw. It's an antifa OG…

This OFAC action isn't based on "antifa", though the press release predictably takes shots at it. It's based on three designated foreign terrorist organizations, notably the PKK.

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

#307

Post by antonvs »

nomadpenguin wrote: post #266
antonvs wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s a conspiracy theory in that there’s no evidence of funding, support, or even cooperation in the particular case of “24”.

The 24 pilot was filmed before 9/11. After 9/11, the show had to be modified because reality has become uncomfortably close to it. That included delaying the premiere and removing a scene involving an exploding passenger aircraft.

The Washington Post reported on a trend of shows about counter-terrorism and spies, on August 4 2011: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2001/08/04/...

That article mentions that some of those shows relied on government consultation, with the CIA and FBI, to help with realism, etc. “24” was not one of them. “24” co-creator Joel Surnow is on record saying there was no government involvement.

Quote from the WP for context:

> Coming this fall [2001]: A new primetime drama series takes a close-up look at an elite federal agency and the dedicated men and women who hunt deadly terrorists and treacherous criminals.

> The new show's on CBS. It's also on NBC. And ABC. And Fox. Some years it's twenty-something sitcoms. Sometimes it's doctors, or vermin-oriented "reality" shows. This fall, the trend is Fed TV: No fewer than five new network series depict the exploits of people with civil-service pay grades, shiny employee ID badges and very large guns.

But it was “24” that did the most to normalize the “torture the bad guys till they reveal the plot” and other such right-wing wet dreams.

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

#308

Post by drak0n1c »

henearkr wrote: post #305
cdrnsf wrote: post #273

This administration is on a witch hunt for anything they can identify as "antifa" when no such central organization insists. Instead it's being used as an over broad label to attack organized opposition to it's broadly unpopular policy agenda. (If you're opposed to antifascists what does that make you?)

Exactly. Antifa is short for "opposed to fascism". Which, you know, is the bad thing where you hurt a lot of people just because they are different from the "group" you defined, with the aim of spoliating the outsiders to enrich the members, or make them an inferior cast, etc... Having to explain why fascism is to be fought against... Ugh, what a world. Not even science-fiction writers dared to write such a nonsensic…

Nomenclature alone is meaningless. Is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea which professes anti-fascist messaging and motives both democratic and anti-fascist? I wouldn't assume every "antifa" group is principled and accurate in its diagnosis of what fascism is and who are acceptable targets for their outgroup directed aggression.

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

#309

Post by aliasxneo »

mdp2021 wrote: post #233
aliasxneo wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I ask what you're hoping the organization does with that money? I'm genuinely interested in understanding what the expected outcome is.

Servers, connection and maintenance costs... That is what they do. Read the manifesto. > We react by providing a platform and tools for digital self-defense addressing the need of free communication for activists and other individuals Yes, they select the users. But clearly to exclude services to those they would judge as bad actors!

So you're in it purely for freedom of expression? I can get behind that, but after reading further it doesn't seem like they are about that at all, but rather are extremely selective and it has nothing to do with "bad acting."

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

#310

Post by antonvs »

mindslight wrote: post #300
antonvs wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you need the detour through the CIA? Our de jure Constitutional government is merely part of a much larger de facto government formed by large corporations and the billionaire (oligarch) class. The same group of people who funded the lobbyists that had the "Patriot" Act ready and waiting on September 10th also funded "24", the politicians and think tanks behind the Iraq War, and so on. The main difference is t…

A conspiracy theory without a shadowy government organization is just a conspiracy.
Post reply on HN