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

851–860 of 872 posts

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

#851

Post by inigyou »

inigyou wrote: post #781
trinsic2 wrote: post #778

Wow sounds like a great organization. Any organization on a sanction list from this criminal government is a friend of mine.

The best thing you, the reader, can do us create something like this. Doesn't have to be massive, there just have to be enough copies they can't sanction everyone. Second best thing is give them money ASAP since they're going to be unable to receive it in two weeks.

Doesn't have to be this exact thing. Just anything that inconveniences the ruling class. Anything from deflock to the pirate bay, and preferably not a copy of something that currently exists unless you can mirror its data.

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

#852

Post by talon8635 »

cdrnsf wrote: post #473
talon8635 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the nazis called themselves socialist. I’m not saying this is that, but names are often chosen to mislead people I don’t think antifa is an kind of organized anything But I can say with certainty that people claiming that title smashes the shit out of property and people for a few years post Floyd where I’ve been in various areas of the west coast Some are probably genuine do-gooders who oppose fascism. Others a…

Sure, there are examples like that in any large enough group. The folks who stormed the capitol on January 6th should still be in jail too. Breaking laws usually yields punishment under said laws (unless you support or in the good graces of the current president). Labelling broad swaths of people who protest your agenda and don't like your masked goons killing and kidnapping people in their communities terrorists is…

I’d feel comfortable categorizing the j6 rioters and the antifa people smashing shops and smashing people over the head with bike lock both as terrorist. Their entire mission is brute force and fear.

The were nonviolent people milling about or protesting in both groups. Leave them alone. But those smashing and threatening and being violent… they (from both sides) both deserve to be separated from normal society

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

#853

Post by inigyou »

einpoklum wrote: post #683
cdrnsf wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the long tail of bodies that will come out of the USAID cuts.

What makes you think the tail of bodies dying due to the cuts will not be offset by the tail of bodies not-dying due to the cuts?

Like who?

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

#854

Post by inigyou »

marcosdumay wrote: post #823
polski-g wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Brazilian banks" were never classified as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. It is a specific designation and law that comes with 20 year prison sentences.

Are you expecting Italian banks to be classified as terrorist organizations?

Yes. And SWIFT.

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

#855

Post by iamnothere »

otterley wrote: post #828
iamnothere wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

I suspect they had plenty of notice that they were on thin ice, and had they consulted attorneys, their attorneys would certainly have advised them to stop. I know I would have. Criminal organizations tend not to care what their lawyers think around behaving well; they primarily seek them out for cover after they're already in trouble.

They may have, they may not have. Impossible to say unless and until we get more detail.

If they were warned and did not listen, that was irresponsible of them due to the impact on other organizations. If they weren’t warned, the government was irresponsibly severe given the impact on legal speech and political activity. Hopefully a journalist can dig into the details beyond press releases, as I doubt that either side will offer an unbiased view.

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

#856

Post by knollimar »

nonethewiser wrote: post #135
mindslight wrote: post #46

Keep in mind we're talking about communications services here, and one focusing on political speech at that. " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " In general I think the free lunch…

There is the absolutely perfect Supreme Court case that ruled against your theory. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/1 There is a law (18 U.S.C. § 2339B) that says you cant knowingly provide material support for designated foreign terrorist organizations. A law firm wanted to provide financial support and legal services to some, including the PKK (the same group A/I wa…

not the person you replied to, but the distinction between communication equipment vs press seems pretty small, no?

Unless you're just saying the court disagrees, which is fair, but yuck

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

#857

Post by dismalaf »

inigyou wrote: post #848
dismalaf wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you even have a definition of fascist? Is it: 1) Right wingers 2) People who hate Jews and glorify Hitler 3) Governments who make laws requiring corporations to cooperate with the state

Why do you present three equally ridiculous options?

These are all definitions people have used. So what's your definition?

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

#858

Post by vrganj »

dismalaf wrote: post #677
inigyou wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A tactic of certain fascist groups is to simply claim their opponents simply call anyone they don't like fascist and attack them. How can we objectively decide who's right?

Have objective laws and prosecute people who break them.

Who gets to decide what's objective?

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

#859

Post by vrganj »

dismalaf wrote: post #819
inigyou wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will that tell us who the fascists are?

Do you even have a definition of fascist? Is it: 1) Right wingers 2) People who hate Jews and glorify Hitler 3) Governments who make laws requiring corporations to cooperate with the state

It's none of these. Umberto Eco's ur-fascism is a good starting point for a more serious definition: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

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

#860

Post by jpcfl »

inigyou wrote: post #785
jpcfl wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Antifa is not centrist

Is antifa in the room with us? Who is he? If opposition to fascism isn't centrism then what is?

I would suggest prompting your favorite LLM about Antifa, anti-fascism and anti-capitalism, rather than advertising your naivety here.

Opposition to fascism isn't centrism when fascism is broadly defined to include centrist ideas and the opposition is expressed as firebombing Tesla dealerships.

Post reply on HN