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

531–540 of 817 posts

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

#531

Post by ipaddr »

gaudystead wrote: post #424
filoleg wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the reason why the 4 is tolerated but the 8 got axed is that 4 is a honeypot and 8 wasn't That's certainly a take. My personal take is that 4chan actually complies with the US laws, specifically the ones around promptly removing+reporting any illegal content that the US cares about (e.g., terrorism threats/CSAM/etc.), and 8chan doesn't. Out of curiosity, what makes you consider 4chan to be a honeypot, as opposed to…

Regarding the honeypot allegations, I'm guessing they're referring to the connections between 4chan's founder, Christopher Poole, aka "moot", and Jeffrey Epstein: https://www.ms.now/opinion/jeffrey-epstein-4chan-chris-poole

That article tells me 4chan wasn't a honeypot but used by Epstein for his chaos or at least he thought about using it.

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

#532

Post by 2legit2quit »

polski-g wrote: post #434
mdp2021 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody In the USA - the consequences should be only related to USA pertinent actors. The newspapers in Italy say, "there is no judgement against them in Italy".

If Italy doesn't shut down their services, the Italy itself will be shut out of SWIFT.

>...then* Italy itself will be shut out of SWIFT.

SWIFT is headquartered in Belgium. Only 2 banks out of the total 24 on the board of directors is US banks. Unless there's a hostile takeover of the SWIFT organisation by the US, I think this is a bit of a stretch. (Plot-twist: Italy is on the board of directors.)

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

#533

Post by [deleted] »

stillpointlab wrote: post #503
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You feel ambivalent about eg. HN not being held liable for some random user signing up and posting, say, a terroristic threat on it? You realise that if platforms/HN were legally punished for that, no website could accept user content, ever, and you are effectively suggesting the end of public communication on the internet?

You are mostly right about my ambivalence (re: liability) but wrong about the conclusion. > no website could accept user content, ever, and you are effectively suggesting the end of public communication on the internet? That does not follow. Just like financial services are forced to KYC, there would have to be some similar provision. For example, a site might choose not to have anonymization and then liability passe…

[deleted]

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

#535

Post by aorloff »

veeti wrote: post #505
fnordpiglet wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The picture everyone is missing is voting in November is how this gets resolved. The only way radical authoritarians survive on 30% approval ratings is apathy. Theres no reason to put up with this, the other side of a 70% electorate opposition is prison for the lawless incumbent

Even if Barack Obama himself was re-elected and the Democrats gained a 102% supermajority, does anybody seriously believe this sanction in particular would be reversed?

If the Dems get the House and Senate, expect a lot of reversals.

I would imagine we might even have some "settlements" with the "DOJ" before the end of Trumps term

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

#536

Post by rayiner »

antonvs wrote: post #518
rayiner wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Torturing bad guys isn’t “right wing” lol. The second season came out my freshman year of college, and about a dozen of us in our dorm watched it religiously every week. I’m pretty sure only two of us were republicans. The show had universal appeal (to men). There’s like a dozen Bollywood knock offs of the show.

That’s quite the Overton window you’re living with. > Georgia Ah yes, I see.

24 was one of the highest rated shows on television, won 20 Emmy awards and was nominated for 68. People just like torturing and killing terrorists. Not just Americans either—it’s a popular Bollywood trope as well.

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

#537

Post by ipaddr »

toast0 wrote: post #474
mapontosevenths wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And Epstein friends Lutnick, Larry Silverstein, Sarah Ferguson and Michael Jackson all had appointments in the WTC on 9/11 and all canceled last minute. I looked into this so I could call you out for spreading disinformation. Except what I found was that this statement is factually accurate as far as I can tell. Each person had their own separate story as to why they didn't go that day. Huh. Not sure what to make of…

> Not sure what to make of this. What was their rate of last minute cancellations? I suspect people in that circle frequently change plans, sometimes at the last minute, so having changed plans on that day would be unremarkable had that day itself been unremarkable. Not to mention the first plane hit at at 8:46 am. Looking at details, none of these seem remarkable, and wouldn't have been remembered or written about i…

[flagged]

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

#538

Post by Terr_ »

stillpointlab wrote: post #503
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You feel ambivalent about eg. HN not being held liable for some random user signing up and posting, say, a terroristic threat on it? You realise that if platforms/HN were legally punished for that, no website could accept user content, ever, and you are effectively suggesting the end of public communication on the internet?

You are mostly right about my ambivalence (re: liability) but wrong about the conclusion. > no website could accept user content, ever, and you are effectively suggesting the end of public communication on the internet? That does not follow. Just like financial services are forced to KYC, there would have to be some similar provision. For example, a site might choose not to have anonymization and then liability passe…

> Just like financial services are forced to KYC, there would have to be some similar provision.

To echo what you said to the other poster, that does not follow:

1. Simply repealing Section 230 would not create some kind any novel "know your poster" legal requirement that doesn't previously exist.

2. Most sites would not have any incentive to do it either, since knowing the original author's identity would not shield them from liability. In some cases it would increase their liability instead!

> If a site wanted anonymous then the burden would be on moderation before it became public.

No, for most sites the opposite would occur.

One of the big things Section 230 does is it declares that the act of moderating does not create involvement and liability for the message. It means you can block things without becoming a sorta-co-author of the things that pass the filter.

Repeal that, and sites will be forced into either (A) basically no moderation so no liability or (B) blocking 99% and letting through the safest 1% they're willing to be liable for.

_______________

Useful links:

* "Everything You Know About Section 230 Is Wrong (But Why?) " https://www.techdirt.com/2021/10/29/everything-you-know-abou...

* "Hello! You've Been Referred Here Because You're Wrong About Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act " - https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

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

#539

Post by [deleted] »

stillpointlab wrote: post #495
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?

I believe there is a double standard here compared to section 230 of the communications act. Platforms can't be held liable for speech on their platforms for a reason. For full disclosure: I feel ambivalent about that. I don't know of an equivalent legal protection for I2P-like infrastructure.

[deleted]

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

#540

Post by 2legit2quit »

aliasxneo wrote: post #483
mdp2021 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reading further ... extremely selective and it has nothing to do with What paragraphs inclined you to think that?

> To be hosted on our servers you have to share our principles of anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia, and anti-militarism. Those stated beliefs are shockingly close to far-leftism. So I'm guessing the same radical exclusionary zeal is also being applied here. Also, for clarity, I'm not taking those definitions literally, but rather as dog whistles for a very specific group of pe…

>I'm not taking those definitions literally

Given that fascism had quite the bloodied history in Italy (see: Mussolini), and we're talking about a group literally based in Italy, why wouldn't you? Is it because you were unaware of said history in Italy and never experienced fascism first-hand, yourself?

Post reply on HN