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

591–600 of 817 posts

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

#591

Post by jayGlow »

inigyou wrote: post #182
jayGlow wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i would agree there as long as the providers are actually neutral they should be free from culpability. we shouldn't encourage providers to restrict who they serve because of potential liability, that's giving them way to much power.

Isn't forcing a provider to do business with everyone who asks just as bad? You're saying noblogs should be compelled to host nazi blogs. (Actual Nazis, not a euphemism. People who want Jews to be gassed.) You're also saying wedding cake bakers should be compelled to bake cakes for gay weddings.

A service can't be refused for reasons like religion or race, a power company cannot refuse to serve a customer because they're black or Muslim. If a company is acting as a platform or provider they should serve customers regardless of their views and this should give them protection for being liable for their customers actions.

Do you think providers should be allowed to refuse service because they don't like certain customers views?

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

#593

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

#594

Post by iamnothere »

otterley wrote: post #333
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?

They're not being targeted for terrorist activity per se; they're being targeted for providing material assistance to terrorists. Per the Treasury Department: "The Autistici Inventati is an Italy-based far-left organization that provides a range of technological tools and services to violent left-wing extremist groups, including website hosting on foreign servers, encrypted email accounts, chat and video conferencing…

What about software projects (such as anonymous messengers) with political stances, who state the kinds of people their software is intended to help? Is that material assistance?

How is Signal not providing material assistance if someone alerts them that “terrorists” are now using their platform?

Sanctioning providers who host political groups, even if it’s extreme politics, is something new. It’s reminiscent of the Bush admin going after Indymedia, which was a huge violation of free speech and was obviously politically targeted. It’s extra ridiculous because we fund and supply the PKK (via their YPG affiliates), which makes this look like a fig leaf for the real goal of disrupting left politics. I don’t like the radical left, but I don’t think this is constitutionally allowed.

I feel like we need some bold lines drawn around this to make sure this power doesn’t get misused.

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

#595

Post by inigyou »

SmashDan wrote: post #584
0dayz wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The Pirate Bay has had legal issues, been raided and taken down in the past. Has 4chan has any issues like this?

The UK fined it £520,000 but has no way to enforce it.

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

#597

Post by inigyou »

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…

If celebrities keep their appointments say 80% of the time, then for every near miss, there should be four who actually died. Are there?

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

#598

Post by inigyou »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #423
quietsegfault wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t even need to be secret or underhanded. The government can simply foster the media that drives their strategic goals. Same kind of idea as stochastic terror.

And just like stochaistic terror, it's a label you can apply to basically any media you don't like, that seems to support a political agenda you are opposed to.

Huh? What label? The conversation wasn't about a label.

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

#599

Post by inigyou »

mr_roboto wrote: post #388
classified wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it was a Fox production. Using the most obvious shill isn't very covert.

The democrats introduced the patriot act...

even if that were true it would be completely irrelevant to the context in which you replied? Check if you have DDS.

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

#600

Post by inigyou »

rayiner wrote: post #579
antonvs wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me someone who "likes torturing" and I'll show you someone who's a social media algorithm away from being MAGA or the local equivalent. "Right wing" is the correct term. Briefly checking your comment history, it's the correct term for you as well, so what's the issue? You don't want to admit it?

I’m happy to admit it. But I think that there’s lots of democrats who are fine with it too—folks who agree on how to handle terrorists, but just want more generous social welfare. I don’t think its a real dividing line in the electorate.

Note that democrats and republicans are both right-wing parties.
Post reply on HN