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

371–380 of 656 posts

Re: A/I shuts down

#371

Post by [deleted] »

a2ff6eeb0 wrote: post #311
sublinear wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN only (lazily) filters content. It doesn't engage in ideological vetting, and doesn't need to either. A good amount of the commenters on this story probably would encourage violence, or at least agree with the sentiment on a different platform, yet here they are. I'm not even sure if they're real people or bots. We are having a discussion right now that would not be allowed if there was vetting.

What exactly do you think vetting means? Why do you think it's only allowed to happen up front?

[deleted]

Re: A/I shuts down

#372

Post by JoshTriplett »

pet_the_bird wrote: post #309
xoa wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a free speech absolutist (albeit one of apparently few people who actually knows what "free speech" is [0]) and I'm absolutely outraged and infuriated by this action and a long history of anti-speech actions by the USG, though this particular Administration is unprecedented in terms of censorship, general evil and authoritarianism in modern history. I also think it's unfortunate how many people in favor of all so…

I am not sure I see a fundamental distinction between HN censoring your speech on their platform or the government preventing you from speaking in public. Both are censoring you right? Is the difference the fact that HN is free to regulate its own platform as it wants to? For a large part I see people using digital platforms as a primary method of expressing their thoughts and opinions. Governments in both the US and…

HN can't put you in jail.

Freedom of association and freedom of speech go hand in hand. You can say whatever you like. You should not be arrested for it. People may choose not to associate with you, or not to do business with you, or not to amplify your speech by hosting it for you.

Re: A/I shuts down

#374

Post by mjfs »

andai wrote: post #360
mjfs wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure those two stats are definitely related. What a childish thing to say.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puer_aeternus

The word "testosterone" is not mentioned on this page at all. Nor any other hormones.

Re: A/I shuts down

#375

Post by Arainach »

politician wrote: post #357
vrganj wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think your country is the only one that thought of free speech? Your particular implementation is irrelevant, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by giving us a lecture on how some foreign country justifies their self-perception. That being said, it is somewhat humorous how you're confirming the stereotypes that apparently even that needs guns and violence over there somehow?

[flagged]

> Hmm, I would have expected more outrage from the US "free speech absolutists" over this US government decision

The crowd that claims to be in favor of free speech should be in favor of free speech for everyone, not just US citizens. This thread isn't about the government - it's about how HN's very vocal "free speech" crowd are actually libertarians who want to say awful things and not get called out rather than people who stand up for the concept of free speech in general.

Re: A/I shuts down

#376

Post by ithkuil »

mdp2021 wrote: post #262
unfocso wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why is the Italian government not protecting them? The Italian police wiretapped them for one year without them knowing.

> wiretapped them for one year Can you share the source? I don't have it. Note: one big issue in the whole event is that this prosecution is happening without a transparent judgement.

You can read about the Italian police obtained the encryption keys through the Aruba colocation provider in the Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistici/Inventati

Italian Postal Police wiretapping (2004–2005)

Re: A/I shuts down

#377

Post by ThunderSizzle »

arcfour wrote: post #296
joquarky wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why gun manufacturers aren't responsible for the behavior of their users, but this org is.

Because you don't apply to a gun company to buy a gun. (You actually apply to the government...chew on that one for a while.)

Well, in my state, you don't "apply" for a gun like you apply for a license. It is just document that you purchased it after the seller runs a background check.

The government isn't attesting to your capabilities - that is still on you as a citizen.

Re: A/I shuts down

#378

Post by lokar »

politician wrote: post #343
Arainach wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe in civil liberties as rights and ideals, your belief shouldn't stop at borders.

[flagged]

The Declaration of Independence, constitution and bill of rights aim to recognize and protect rights everyone is born with.

Re: A/I shuts down

#379

Post by tolerance »

If I was someone who funded/relied on A/I's services I would have been trying to figure out what would it had taken for the US State Department to produce evidence for their allegations and would have lobbied for some sort of determination of whether the scope of A/I's involvement with said parties and their actions violated their own policies/terms of service.

Otherwise there is a way to look at this as A/I getting away scot-free for failing to administer their policies, failing to hold bad actors accountable and ultimately letting down individuals and organizations who lawfully used their services.

I'm also not surprised that A/I themselves never anticipated something like this happening and did not have some sort of protocol in place to deal with it. They had 25 years to do so.

Re: A/I shuts down

#380

Post by lokar »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #314
linuxhansl wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never heard of A/I and I have no idea what they are about, but rather than a government communication this statement reads like an angry rant with lots of unhelpful name-calling. I would expect a government to be professional and just stick to the (proven) facts and avoiding labels; that would also be more convincing. Oh well.

Wait this is not true. I’m truly neutral here. The site lists actual terror attacks where the tools were used. That’s pretty damning if accurate. Anyone care to comment on that? I’m not well informed but the statement does not look like just straight up name calling.

Has any terrorist group ever used Gmail to communicate?
Post reply on HN