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

661–670 of 836 posts

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

#661

Post by jenadine »

toast0 wrote: post #646
inigyou wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well Lutnick's brother for one. But Wikipedia has a list of notable people who died [1]. David Angel, an Emmy winning TV writer and producer. Garnet Bailey, an acomplished hockey player. Carolyn Beug who directed the award winning music video for Van Halen's Right Now. William E. Caswell, a prominent physicist. Charles Edward Jones, an astronaut. Daniel Lewin, co-founder of Akamai. Etc. You can read the list and come…

Also, not everyone who was in the tower died

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

#662

Post by Arainach »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #656
culi wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> is accurately reciting what this organization says about itself openly

Declaring that the State Department's language is "accurately reciting" is equating.

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

#663

Post by nilshauk »

graemep wrote: post #95
collabs wrote: post #5

For those like me who don't have context, here is the New York Times article on this recent news / event https://archive.fo/e8Gss > The State Department on Wednesday designated three groups based in Europe, including two that advocate Palestinian rights, as transnational terrorist organizations. > The move is part of the Trump administration’s fight against what it calls a “resurgence of far-left political terrorism”…

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…

The genocide of the Palestinians (as argued by the UN) triggers the genocide convention obligating states and individuals to act.

It even comes in the effect at the very probability of genocide occuring. Preventing new armaments being sold to Israel is thus the rational and responsible thing to do, for example what Spain has been doing by refusing the transportation of arms through their country. This off course earns you some powerful, heavily moneyed enemies.

Edit: This was an attempt to explain why civilians are spray painting Elbit's military planes.

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

#664

Post by saidnooneever »

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?

a lot of fools beleive that if they facilitate the means somehow they will be free to do so.

Your rights do not matter. Laws do not matter.

If your technology is used by someone for bad, then someone trying to prevent that bad will some day come knocking. Law or not. Rights or not.

The only thing you can thus do is protect yourself. If you get taken out, that is you relying on your Rights and Laws. They dont exist and wont protect you.

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

#665

Post by mdp2021 »

inigyou wrote: post #617
jscd wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

being selective about who you provide free services to makes you an activist group?

Yes, see, if you sell guns, but you only sell guns to people who promise to use them for defense, but don't sell them to people who promise to murder, that makes you an activist gun seller and personally responsible for whatever happens with those guns.

Either you wanted to be sarcastic or your simile did not work well.

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

#666

Post by graemep »

inigyou wrote: post #619
ls612 wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sabotage of military aircraft is political violence.

It's direct action. Violence is direct action against people's bodies, not property directly involved in genocide.

How are British refuelling and transport aircraft directly involved in genocide?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/palestine-group-attacks-raf-...

Its definitely not OK to vandalise things, and if is not terrorism what is it? War? In which case expect the military to shoot back.

What about their attack that disabled a police officer mentioned in this thread. That is an attack on her body.

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

#667

Post by mdp2021 »

p-e-w wrote: post #448
culi wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone that politically aligns with them. They say that explicitly: > 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 They don't receive any money for this. It's 100% volunteer services.

Then they are an activist group, not an “infrastructure provider” as claimed elsewhere in this thread, and holding them responsible for what their members do with the accounts they give them seems entirely fair.

> fair

No, with these limited elements. The filter may just be "of course I will not provide my (free) service to people that may use it in what I call a repugnant way".

When you know Harry is a rogue CEO, say a misinformation spreader or the issuer of unethical products, and you refuse to work for it, to provide it your services: does that make you an "activist"? Many people will call it "just the normal right thing to do". This is similar to people here calling certain positions "centrist" or "extremist" - and that entirely depends on how those positions are interpreted beyond their dumb (not telling) label, and on the dumb labels over said labels.

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

#668

Post by p-e-w »

culi wrote: post #454
p-e-w wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they are an activist group, not an “infrastructure provider” as claimed elsewhere in this thread, and holding them responsible for what their members do with the accounts they give them seems entirely fair.

You want them to be "held accountable" for supporting groups that don't align with the ideology of the US whitehouse.

If you select who you provide services to based on their ideology, you can’t shrug and say “I’m just an infrastructure provider, same as the electrical grid” when it turns out that some of those individuals committed crimes using the stuff you gave them.

That’s a very different situation compared to the standard “sign up with your email here”. The provider is responsible because they picked their clients, rather than their clients picking them.

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

#669

Post by graemep »

inigyou wrote: post #622
veeti wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>any kind of property "Any kind" is quite the load bearing argument there. Let me remind you Europe is under an ongoing land invasion, which is why fucking with its defensive capabilities is unlikely to solicit much sympathies.

You mean Russia invading Ukraine, right? Were these jets helping Ukraine or were they helping Israel?

Neither. They were part of anti-ISIS/ISIL operations.

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

#670

Post by p-e-w »

mdp2021 wrote: post #667
p-e-w wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they are an activist group, not an “infrastructure provider” as claimed elsewhere in this thread, and holding them responsible for what their members do with the accounts they give them seems entirely fair.

> fair No, with these limited elements. The filter may just be "of course I will not provide my (free) service to people that may use it in what I call a repugnant way". When you know Harry is a rogue CEO, say a misinformation spreader or the issuer of unethical products, and you refuse to work for it, to provide it your services: does that make you an "activist"? Many people will call it "just the normal right thing…

> Many people will call it "just the normal right thing to do".

It’s absolutely not a normal thing to do for entities that want to use the “we are just infrastructure, our users are responsible for their actions” excuse.

In fact, such entities (e.g. power grid, telecom) are often legally prohibited from choosing their clients, and in exchange aren’t held responsible for what their clients do with their services.

Post reply on HN