Live data from Hacker News

U.S. sanctions against the A/I Collective

inventati.org

311–320 of 845 posts

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

#311
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Palestine Action has been designated a terrorist group in the UK as well after sabotaging military aircraft (the article says they sprayed paint, but does not say it was sprayed inside jet engines, rendering them inoperable). Masar Badil supports "armed struggle". One of the other groups ("hammer") recently designated a terrorist group (and linked to A/I Collective in another article I read ) got its name by attackin…

> Palestine Action has been designated a terrorist group in the UK as well after sabotaging military aircraft This is already an extreme perversion of justice all on its own. Damaging military equipment is absolutely outside any useful definition of terrorism. This is simply armed conflict.

> Damaging military equipment is absolutely outside any useful definition of terrorism.

I hope no one takes this seriously.

If you're caught sabotaging equipment on a US military installation in many cases they are authorized to use deadly force and you'll be held accountable under the UCMJ. The absolute best outcome is you're designated a terrorist and live to see a prison cell.

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

#312

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?

Maybe a honeypot?

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

#313

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?

[dead]

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

#314

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?

I'm uninterested in bot answers. You claimed label X applies so consequence Y applies.

Useless.

Why is providing people with the means to express themselves to an audience wrong? Please think for yourself; don't resort to labels.

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

#315
the group: https://web.archive.org/web/20260101085655/https://www.autis...

> A/I (Autistici/Inventati, pronounced [au’tistiʧi]-[iŋ’vɛntati], or [iŋvɛn’tati]) was born in 2001 from an encounter of individuals and collectives of the autonomous anticapitalist movement interested in technology and active in the digital rights struggle. We believe that this world is far from being the best world possible. We react by providing a platform and tools for digital self-defense addressing the need of free communication for activists and other individuals.

> All of our services are provided for free, without any form of control or commoditization of the personal user data. We don’t receive any form of compensation for our work. We are volunteers exploiting the experiences we accumulated over years of technological, political and legal research while doing radical activism, and we are motivated and inspired by the principles of solidarity and self organization.

From their about page:

> A/I was born over 20 years ago to provide internet support (through website hosting, e-mail accounts, mailing lists, chat, blogs, and much more) to activists and collectives coming from the world of grassroot and social movements. Our principles are fairly straightforward: the world should not be run on money, should be rooted in solidarity, community, mutual help, equal rights and freedom, and social justice. Easy, isn’t 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. On top of that, one has to share our basic attitude towards money and the capitalistic world: a deep feeling of uneasyness and unrest.

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

#316
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.

Which of Trump or Putin is worse is irrelevant. Trump's US is maybe on par with Putin's Russia, maybe better or maybe worse (which depends on which aspect is looked at). That cannot deter us from fighting against what is bad in both of them.

This is NOT a competition nor a championship about which dictatorship can inflict the most pain and destruction to the world.

Nobody is rooting for such a "winner".

Criticize all the despicable actions of such stinky regimes, regardless of if they are in Putin's Russia, in Trump's US, or wherever else.

We are NOT in a race to the bottom.

We shall never forget our values, as Humans and as Earth-dwellers.

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

#317
post #134

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…

[dead]

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

#318

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?

The very first sentence on their about page says they "provide internet support (through website hosting, e-mail accounts, mailing lists, chat, blogs, and much more) to activists and collectives coming from the world of grassroot and social movements"

It also says their manifesto was written in 2002.

You can use the Wayback machine to see older versions.

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

#319
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autistici/Inventati is an Italian collective, active since around 2001, that runs free digital services for activists, grassroots groups and anyone who wants to communicate without being profiled. It provides email accounts, mailing lists, blogs, websites, chat and VPN access.

Is it truly anyone, or only anyone that politically aligns with them?

Anyone that politically aligns with them. They say that explicitly:

> 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

They don't receive any money for this. It's 100% volunteer services.

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

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure you want to say it's armed conflict? That makes it legitimate to kill members of Palestine Action.

Do you think that's a different understanding of the situation than the one that the state currently has? Is it not "legitimate" in the same way to kill terrorists?

I am not an expert on the legalities. My impression is that, if they are terrorists, you kind of have to catch them in the act, or preparing to act, or providing support for actions. An army, in wartime, can be attacked in broader circumstances.

Corrections welcome if I am wrong.

Post reply on HN