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

551–560 of 827 posts

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

#551

Post by incompatible »

Amezarak wrote: post #493
cogman10 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd look at the Prairieland Detention Center Case to understand how broadly and aggressively this government is using "terrorism" to go after political opponents. Daniel Rolando Sanchez-Estrada got 30 years in prison for moving a box of magazines related to the protest. He wasn't even at the actual protest. Several people got decades in jail because the FBI successfully convinced a jury that setting off fireworks nea…

> Several people got decades in jail because the FBI successfully convinced a jury that setting off fireworks near a detention center on the 4th of july was actually detonating bombs. And that because one idiot brought a gun and shot it, they are all guilty. The USG has a somewhat different description of events, and appears to have had video that they showed a jury. > The defendants dressed in “black bloc”—dark clot…

From supporters of the defendants:

https://prairielanddefendants.com/what-really-happened-at-pr...

I'm not going to just take the word of anybody in the US government without listening to the other side. The description on "Episode 10 Who Attacked" is the other side.

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

#552

Post by Terr_ »

stillpointlab wrote: post #544
Terr_ wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Here's my paraphrased view of the comment chain:

1. stillpointlab: "I'm ambivalent about Section 230. Also [other things not discussed further]."

2. applfanboysbgon: "Hey, you can't be ambivalent about Section 230, removing it would be disastrous, any website like HN would be in shambles."

3. stillpointlab: "Websites would be OK if that happened, there would just have to be some provisions around anonymity."

5. Terr_: "Where did this talk of anonymity come from? That's not what Section 230 does."

6. stillpointlab: "Who said anything about removing Section 230? I didn't say that and I wasn't talking about that happening."

7. [Error: Recursion detected]

In other words, the thread was was steered into "what if Section 230 went away" (at #2) and your reply looks as if you recognized that and proceeded to build on it.

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

#553

Post by 0dayz »

vlyan wrote: post #275
foul wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

8chan's /pol/ wasn't any different than 4chan's. the reason why the 4 is tolerated but the 8 got axed is that 4 is a honeypot and 8 wasn't.

Only that 8 was and is just a giant astroturfer for Watkins.

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

#554

Post by sdsd »

meowface wrote: post #457
vlyan wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

8chan's /pol/ wasn't any different than 4chan's. the reason why the 4 is tolerated but the 8 got axed is that 4 is a honeypot and 8 wasn't.

1. It is extremely likely neither 8chan /pol/ nor 4chan /pol/ were or are honeypots. 2. Untrue. I heavily used both (not as a right-winger; just as a decades-long anonymous imageboard user who sometimes finds it fun to rile people up in /pol/ boards). 8chan's was a lot worse and was shut down for a reason.

[dead]

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

#555

Post by 0dayz »

vlyan wrote: post #451
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…

we've seen several websites that do not break US law get evicted by registrars, ISPs, DDoS protection services, and other Internet landlords. 4chan miraculously survived multiple mass hysteria periods of the past decade without (iirc) any major disruptions. same as Russian 2ch -- miraculously untouched by Russia's rapid North Koreaization even though its /pol/ is overwhelmingly anti-regime.

The pirate bay is still up despite being taken down, is this now also a honeypot?

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

#556

Post by nielsbot »

xdennis wrote: post #276
nielsbot wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

define terrorism in this context

[flagged]

> started from a false premise that "antifascists" are being persecuted because they're against "fascism".

Uh… then WTF are they against?

Also—terrorism is a vague term and defined by the authorities. I’m curious what terrorist acts poster thinks Antifa will commit or has committed.

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

#557

Post by dev1ycan »

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?

Signal is a honeypot

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

#559

Post by philipwhiuk »

RIMR wrote: post #464
graemep wrote: 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…

Spraying paint into the jet engine of a military aircraft is not "terrorism". It may be criminal, but it was not in any way a violent crime. Given that it disabled the aircraft, it counts as more than mere vandalism, but calling this an act of terror is outrageous. The logic seems to be that Hamas has committed terrorist attacks against Israel, and is also the government of Palestine, so anyone fighting for the human…

Terrorism is often defined as actions designed to invoke political change.

There's no actual requirement for violence for it to be terrorism.

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

#560

Post by 2legit2quit »

CMay wrote: post #484
well_ackshually wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>World War 2 Do I need to remind you you _nuked_ a soon to be surrendering country for the lulz? >Vietnam war Lmao you've literally went in there because of your blind anti-communist behaviour after coup-ing your own "allies" of South Vietnam >Korean War True, not your fault, you just bombed an entire country into non existence. >Iraq attack Iran Lmao you gave Iraq billions of dollars in hardware through back channel…

> Lmao you've literally went in there because of your blind anti-communist behaviour after coup-ing your own "allies" of South Vietnam Anti-communism was and still is highly important and critical. Comintern was aiming to conquer the Earth with global communism. It was an open objective and part of what caused World War 2. The Soviet Union has caused more death on this planet as a result of its communist expansion th…

> Anti-communism was and still is highly important and critical.

McCarthyism was the pinnacle of the anti-communism movement. How did that turn out, again?

> It was an open objective and part of what caused World War 2

I'm pretty sure Germany invading other countries was the cause of World War 2. I don't see how you can lump "dang commies were spreading, so we had to go fight 'em" in as a justification, when there was only a non-aggression pact between Germany and the former-USSR. "Those dang commies were spreading without shooting a single bullet, so we had to stop 'em! Yeehaw!"

> Nukes aren't as deadly as other weapons we were already using.

How do you figure? If they weren't/aren't as deadly, why did the US waste the billions to research and produce them? The technology of the time had no qualitative equal. Rockets weren't even in use, yet, because the V2 only came out during WWII. So, no ICBMs. At best, there was the rail gun that Germany was developing but that was a "their" weapon and not an "our" weapon.

> The US formed NATO with the European countries.

Where are you getting this revision of history from? The Western Union was created, first, by European countries and it became NATO a few years later. The US didn't form anything, it came to an already existing table.

> I don't know why you're so caught up on nukes.

Ok, Agent Orange? People are still dying from cancer, to this day, from that.

> Usually whenever we help some country, especially a country we don't particularly like, it'll be conditioned on something.

You're so close to getting it... "it'll be conditioned on something" is the pivotal point: As long you get what you want(ed), consequences be damned. Iran-Contra comes to mind, here.

> The USD being almost ubiquitous helps to stabilize it against many kinds of major shocks that no other country can absorb.

Isn't actually the inverse? It's preventing all of it's former close allies from just dumping the bonds because Dorito wants to antagonise all of your allies? Didn't the 2008 crash demonstrate it can destabilise in a major shock, just as well?

> If you can prove anything I've said is incorrect, I'll change my mind

Everything in your statements seems to be bathed in American Exceptionalism and I'm doubting that anyone could change your mind.

Post reply on HN