Manifesto – who we are and what do we want (2002)
inventati.org
inventati.org
i wish we invent digital landmines that will not get activated when clicked by the humans but will take down the server thats trying to scrape without permission.
https://www.inventati.org/who/collective
"After 2005 we have been constantly pestered by prosecutors and security forces (and even by the Vatican! [4]) asking us to hand over users’ data and identities and we are proud to say we were always able to answer: we are sorry, but we do not have them."
A Statement by A/I Collective About US Sanctions
to me it feels like, peaceful good tech guys supporting freedom of speech and many other things that are becoming more and more critical nowadays!
the facts that US tardocracy classifies them as criminally just confirms the greatness and positiveness of the actions of this group!
"we beleive information and coms should be free. we provide as non profit. reach out for more info on specifics. services include xyz. we do it from idealist standpoint so not everyone is rendered services. manual review."
cant beleive how many words flew by before i reached that conclusion. if it was stamped 2026 people would call it AI slop.
How did it go from
> The services we provide are not intended for (directly or indirectly) commercial use, or to be used by organized religions or political parties
to
> Autistici Inventati identifies itself as an “anti-fascist” and “anti-militarist” organization opposed to capitalism and exclusively provides its services to vetted individuals, collectives, and groups it perceives to be aligned with its ideology, including to sanctioned terrorist organizations such as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been designated by the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union for its use of terrorist tactics leading to thousands of deaths in Türkiye, Iraq, and Syria since its establishment in 1984.
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0616/
Is this allegation simply not true? Do they have nothing in common with PKK?
If I sell hammers and someone buys one and bashes someone with it, it’s not my fault.
If I sell a hammer called the “head cracker 3000” only to angry people who tell me who they want to bash, that’s different.
In this case these guys are providing a service, so I would wonder what they are doing differently than, say, Facebook. The latter is also used (and run) by criminals. Most likely the governments want this particular service down, found the legal avenue to do so, and are now following through.
> We deny all allegations included in the statements, while we strongly affirm our dedication to providing a platform of tools for digital self-defense, addressing the need of free communication for activists and other individuals, groups and associations.
> We will not back down, we will keep doing what we have been doing all these years and we will do whatever is in our possibility to counter the false allegations made by a politically desperate administration with the sole intention of swaying people and media attention away from their own violence and warmongering.
> Antifascism and anticapitalism are not terrorism. Protesting is not terrorism. And everyone has the right to speak out and to struggle for humanity.
> Collettivo Autistici / Inventati — “Socializzare saperi senza fondare poteri”
> Stay human
The perpetrators very likely used Apple and Google services, too, and no one views that as some sort of endorsement by the companies.
And far too often people downplay their violence and ruthlessness by using those labels as an excuse.
are you arguing that those statements are false?
because terrorist acts have been done in the name of both.
And I would bet that a quite few people from those bubbles would answer yes.
For me, statements like "antifacism and anticapitalism are not terrorism" is propaganda hidden in political slogans, not meaningful definitions. Their intention is to shield acts committed under those labels from being judged by the same standard as politcally less sympathetic violence.
Terrorism does not stop being terrorism because the people claim to fight capitalism, fascism, religion, imperialism or anything else?
Is Christianity terrorism? As a religion obviously not. But still horrific acts were done in the name of Christianity and the Islam. Just ask the witches...
So labeling yourself an anti-fascist or anti-capitalist does not magically makes you a non-terrorist.
nor does the label make a terrorist. it's a neutral statement. the original claim was that the label alone means you support/condone the actions of those who engage in terrorist acts in the name of that label.
while i don’t have a dog in this particular fight, you can find “quite a few people” who will answer yes to just about the craziest shit you can imagine. it’s like the rule 34 of dipshittery. this most certainly does not make christians liable for the kkk or grandpa style republicans liable for fascists or whatever. and we probably need more evidence than that to justify what’s happening here.
Here you answered your own premise. The question is, are capitalists also punching first?
and where is the difference than to a mad dog?
as an aside younger writers of a certain poetic bent often want to write manifestos, and damn those tend to be really embarrassing.
When one says a text is embarrassing there are generally three potential objects of embarrassment, the writer, the reader, or, if there is one, the target of the text.
In the case of a manifesto the manifesto writer intends for the target of the manifesto to be embarrassed, but often the actually embarrassed is the unsuspecting writer and the cringing reader.
Huh? Citation please.
(and good catch on 'whom')
it is of course a bit of a stretch on some of the meanings of embarrassed, as many manifestos want their targets to suffer things far worse than embarrassment, so let us say embarrassment is just one of the negative things a manifesto hopes to see in its target.
Here are some synonyms for embarrassed - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/thesaurus/embarrassed I believe as a general rule artistic manifestos are often very focused on causing some of these feelings in their targets.
to make some examples: if we assume that the target of the Communist Manifesto is Capitalism we can say that it is hoped that Capitalism suffers negative consequences, amongst which embarrassment is a relatively minor one.
If we assume that the Surrealist manifesto has a target of the old garde of French art we can say it is hoped that the old garde suffers some embarrassment and fades away, being inconsequential to the world that surrealism has created.
The same operation seems to exist for any manifesto I have ever read, including the manifesto of the current discussion which, surprisingly, is not at all for any of the things it has announced it stands against.
If you do not agree, please provide an example of a single manifesto that says we stand for certain things and the things that are against us are really great and we love them.
I notice you have dropped in 'artistic' which is a new criterion. Sloppy. :) Not interested in chatting with bots for now.
As for me, I am not interested in chatting with people with a kink for insulting others as bots.
As a general rule most manifestos have a subtext of how the manifesto writers are brilliant people meant to get rid of the rubbish of the past and fix the current situation in whatever subject the manifesto is focused on. After the time of the text is gone and the manifesto is a piece of the past these manifestos may elicit either the feeling of how spot on they were, secondhand embarrassment, or just hilarity, sometimes even mixes of these feelings if your relation to the movement the manifesto champions is a complicated one.
Thus when Andre Breton writes his actual poetry I might like it, but when he starts writing about what Surrealism will achieve I start thinking "give it a rest, Breton" and looking away at Yeats as someone not quite as embarrassing.
But please exaplain why, or just throwing s** randomly?
wrapping your pitch with the word manifesto and writing in poems to try to make it so can be considered a bit cringe.
its a taste ofc., but calling things cringe is also subjective isnt it.