Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A/I shuts down

keepitfree.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 650 posts

Re: A/I shuts down

#191

Post by kennywinker »

politician wrote: post #173
msm_ wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IRGC, Hamas, Hizballah and maybe others are far right organizations, so I don't think this is purely left/right. And what about signal? I am pretty sure many violent/terrorist groups use it too. I don't have an opinion about this group, because I didn't even know it existed. But, like often with things related to the free speech, I think this topic is more complex than you make it out to be.

No one believes pro-Hamas activists in the US are voting for Trump.

"pro-hamas activists" is approximately nobody.

Re: A/I shuts down

#192

Post by stanleykm »

gobacktoreddi wrote: post #190
kennywinker wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideologically vetting can mean a lot of things. Like, a sign on the door that says "NO TERFS" is a form of ideological vetting. By this logic any right wing message board would be designated terrorists the moment one person who has posted there commits a violent act. This is meant to chill domestic left-wing activism. Just like the person who got 30 years for delivering some zines ( https://freedom.press/issues/texas…

[flagged]

alright buddy take it outside

Re: A/I shuts down

#193

Post by pepperoni_pizza »

politician wrote: post #173
msm_ wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IRGC, Hamas, Hizballah and maybe others are far right organizations, so I don't think this is purely left/right. And what about signal? I am pretty sure many violent/terrorist groups use it too. I don't have an opinion about this group, because I didn't even know it existed. But, like often with things related to the free speech, I think this topic is more complex than you make it out to be.

No one believes pro-Hamas activists in the US are voting for Trump.

> No one believes pro-Hamas activists in the US are voting for Trump.

Because "pro-Hamas activists" don't exist.

Re: A/I shuts down

#194

Post by InsideOutSanta »

what_hn wrote: post #83
drivingmenuts wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of y'all are from countries that are in great turmoil. Which is partly or mostly our fault. Maybe we could concentrate on doing less of that.

It really is not the fault of the US that Mexico has drug gangs that kill people at random. It's not the fault that Pakistan and India are nearly at war forever. It's not the US fault that many countries support and require female genital mutilation. The US is not as evil as you think.

> It really is not the fault of the US that Mexico has drug gangs that kill people at random

This is a direct result of the "war on drugs" perpetrated by the US.

The other two are genuinely not the fault of the US, but bringing up two examples where the US wasn't the source of the problem doesn't exactly contradict the original claim.

Re: A/I shuts down

#195

Post by healsdata »

SkyeCA wrote: post #53
dd8601fn wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like providing encrypted communications? I think we can all see the potential problems with this, even if a specific group is awful. “The specific claim: a far-left media group that describes itself as a “tool” for militants to share information “to be acted upon” used A/I’s services to publish communiqués and calls to action for U.S.-designated terrorist groups, including FAI/FRI, the IRGC, Hamas, Hizballah,…

[flagged]

Substack knowingly and openly platforms neo-nazis, allowing them to profit from their rhetoric while taking a piece of the action. Even if the authors avoid specific calls to violence to skirt the ToS, it still gives them fertile ground for recruitment and funding of their activities.

By your definition, then, Substack should be labelled as a terrorist organization and shutdown, yes?

Re: A/I shuts down

#196

Post by goosejuice »

ranyume wrote: post #80
jtrn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but there are degrees. I’d rather have a conversation about trans rights here in Oslo than in Afghanistan.

How do you think LGBTQI+ rights came exist? It was not a pretty, blood-free, submissive process. And we're still far from LGBTQI+ rights being normalized. How about workers rights? Slavery? Any progress that you'd think of as civilizing was not achieved without blood.

Indeed. Must also acknowledge that such tactics generate the seeds of opposition. i.e. hate begets hate and violence begets violence.

Re: A/I shuts down

#197

Post by notesinthefield »

alexwebb2 wrote: post #113
andlarry wrote: post #27

Here is the State Department's rationale: https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...

I’m not familiar with A/I, but this sounds pretty damning – the ideological vetting of users in particular seems to discount any sort of neutral utility defense.

The use of the word “ideological” in text with a US Gov-anything byline is tantamount to a fart. Its whining “I dont like this thing but I cant cry like a child about it.”

Re: A/I shuts down

#198

Post by sph »

Grombobulous wrote: post #169
pepperoni_pizza wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “we designed this to be anonymous and specifically intend/expect for it to be used in any way regardless of legality and are okay with it.” That is also what Signal does. Or absolutely any end-to-end encrypted communication service at all - these are explicitly designed not to retain details of communication. Do you want to declare them terrorists too?

What Signal does is different than what A/I was in a number of ways.

Which terrorists and criminals are texting right now on Signal? You (and hopefully Signal) have no idea whatsover, that's the point of privacy.

Now, if you are against private conversations, please state so clearly so we know which side of the fence you lean towards.

Re: A/I shuts down

#200

Post by ricardobeat »

pepperoni_pizza wrote: post #186
Grombobulous wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Signal does is different than what A/I was in a number of ways.

You won't elaborate though, just make vague accusations.

I think the difference they alluded to is that they manually vetoed new users, presumably based on their self-declared goals and ideology, whereas Signal etc are neutral platforms.
Post reply on HN