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

541–550 of 817 posts

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

#541

Post by culi »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #459
culi wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I don't see anything wrong with that. They make 0 m…

> I don't see anything wrong with that. Did I say there was something wrong with that? No. Let me repeat what I said: "In this case the US State Department is accurately reciting what this organization says about itself openly". Do you disagree with this statement?

No of course I don't. The State Department is alleging terrorism. In their own words they are alleging anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-war, anti-fascism, etc.

How could you possibly equate those?

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

#542

Post by [deleted] »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #459
culi wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I don't see anything wrong with that. They make 0 m…

> I don't see anything wrong with that. Did I say there was something wrong with that? No. Let me repeat what I said: "In this case the US State Department is accurately reciting what this organization says about itself openly". Do you disagree with this statement?

[deleted]

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

#543

Post by pgporada »

xp84 wrote: post #479
aftbit wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>[The US State Dept's] examples include alleged railway and pipeline sabotage in Europe, attacks on energy infrastructure, Rose City Antifa, resistance to Atlanta’s proposed police-training center, Jane’s Revenge and publications carrying statements attributed to armed organizations. At least one of these things is not like the others. Why are peaceful protests against "Cop City" (Atlanta's proposed police-training c…

[flagged]

[flagged]

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

#544

Post by stillpointlab »

Terr_ wrote: post #538
stillpointlab wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What doesn't follow? Who said we should repeal section 230? Or to do so without replacing it?

Not me, I said I was ambivalent about it; don't put words in my mouth. My words were: "there would have to be some similar provision [to KYC]". Similar, not the same. Not nothing.

Everything else sounds like you imagining/speculating about what some future provision would look like. And your imagined fears don't play into my ambivalence.

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

#545

Post by 2legit2quit »

culi wrote: post #452
xyzal wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since they are now "sanctioned" by the US you cannot legally donate to them even if you wanted to...*[0] There are many of us who do not live in the US, so many still can. Just not through paypal.

That's not how US sanctions work. When the US sanctions something, nobody is allowed to donate to them. Basically any country that trades with the US (most) has to follow according to their trade deals. Any bank that wants to be in SWIFT must block any transfers

> Any bank that wants to be in SWIFT must block any transfers.

Given that SWIFT is headquartered in Belgium and Italy's major bank is one of the 24 banks on the SWIFT board, how does this "blockade" in SWIFT happen? Is the inference that all of the banks bow down to the US, even though the US only represents 2 out of the 24 banks on the board?

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

#546

Post by tptacek »

impossiblefork wrote: post #528
tptacek wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again: in every system there's always some kind of sleuthing you could do to attempt to identify a user. That's not the legal standard. The complaint against A/I is that they knowingly and deliberately assisted the PKK.

No. With dummy messages you are guaranteed that traffic analysis will not be possible. Because you connect to the network, then start sending messages to everybody continuously, a message every second, or every ten seconds, or every 100 seconds, you will, every second, or every ten seconds, or 100 seconds, be able to send a message to whoever you want, and you will not be distinguished in any way from the other netwo…

I don't have an opinion about the PKK. My broad take is: if Europe doesn't care, there's no reason for the US to be leading a sanctions effort. I'm confident like everybody else that this is largely pretextual.

All I care about is the claim that if they can do this to A/I they'll come for Signal next. That doesn't follow.

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

#547

Post by blaufuchs »

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.

Same with Homeland. How many times do you see Carrie stymied by the law and cheer when she eventually breaks it?

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

#548

Post by sapphicsnail »

OCASMv2 wrote: post #534
Arainach wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. The Republican party loves to throw both labels at anything it doesn't like, but most people who are against fascism are not communists.

[flagged]

The only people who say this are people who don't actually know anyone who is antifascist. Hell, most of the people I've met who strait up identify as antifa are probably closer to democratic socialist than communist and they tend to be pretty dweeby.

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

#549

Post by polski-g »

2legit2quit wrote: post #532
polski-g wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

SWIFT abides by international law and local laws. Including those against processing money transfer requests for terrorist organizations like A/I.

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

#550

Post by chrisweekly »

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.

Yeah; how many times in 24 hours can one vigilante commit acts of thinly-narratively-justified but actually-illegal torture without audiences clueing in?
Post reply on HN