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

651–660 of 872 posts

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

#651

Post by podocarp »

inigyou wrote: post #600
rayiner wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed, it's absurd people still have this left/right standoff. Boggled my mind as a kid in history class that the Republicans somehow wanted to free slaves in the past but are all in on bombing the crap out of iraq. Well, guess there's no real code or manifesto to follow. It's almost like they're just saying whatever the heck they have to just to get elected, after that all bets are off.

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

#652

Post by fleroviumna »

undeveloper wrote: post #326
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…

> violent attacks > on energy infrastructure that's not violence

[dead]

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

#653

Post by lazide »

GolfPopper wrote: post #467
antonvs wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't forget the X-Files spinoff The Lone Gunmen . During its pilot episode, first airing March 4th, 2001, members of the U.S. government remotely hijack an airliner and try to crash it into the World Trade Center, blaming anti-American terrorist groups in order to start a new global war on terrorism for the profit of defense industry contractors.

It may also have contributed a bit to the planning - HEAT (the movie) came out before the North Hollywood bank robbery and shootings, but clearly influenced them. I don’t think there is any plausible direct relationship, just zeitgeist/influence.

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

#654

Post by iamnothere »

otterley wrote: post #604
iamnothere wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s all about mens rea. The law distinguishes between people who provide services to anyone, and people who intentionally market their service to criminals, even under coded language. In this case the provider didn’t just allegedly market themselves to them; they also actually excluded others.

Fair, I guess, although again I’m uncomfortable with how the PKK link appears to be used as an excuse for political suppression. I think in cases like this, it would be best to order the provider to discontinue services to the specific entity in question before resorting to sanctions, since they provided services to other political groups that were not listed as “terrorists”. I’m not sure if we have any information about whether this happened or not.

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

#655

Post by dbdr »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #559
RIMR wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

An event encouraging people to vote in an election or a peaceful demonstration against a proposed legislation are "actions designed to invoke political change". I don't think any of those are commonly understood to be terrorism, nor should they.

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

#656

Post by baobabKoodaa »

culi wrote: post #541
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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?

I have never equated those.

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

#659

Post by baobabKoodaa »

mlindner wrote: post #577
Arainach wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opposing fascism and racism is not "radical left". It's centrism. The State Department's words are not A/I's.

Being against facism and racism is centrism, being part of an "anti-fascist" or "anti-racist" group is radical left. If you're part of a "group" that has stated goals of pushing something that is already a norm then its pretty clear what what you're doing is not pushing for what is already the norm as if it was the norm you wouldn't need to push for it.

[flagged]

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

#660

Post by mzhaase »

Avicebron wrote: post #3

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?

They're just anti-capitalist nerds, example, they host Linux user groups in a couple cities, collect computers for schools etc.
Post reply on HN