A/I shuts down
keepitfree.ai
keepitfree.ai
The issue is, now they are the legal owners and liable for the content of the website, and they also support PayPal, which will absolutely drop them the moment they get sanctioned.
You don't need to pay to host onion websites (.onion domains are free and have no central registry). Though that of course really limits the possible outreach, because most people are not used to browsing onionsites.
"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."
This is tech guys supporting with infra real freedom of speech! even more important nowadays! jumping to the violent antifa narrative means ignoring a lot of important things.
No one is claiming that Amy Klobuchar or Gavin Newsom is a member of antifa.
this, in combination with the rise of Flock, Clearview, Axon, and other mass-surveillance programs is leading us down an incredibly dark and Orwellian state - something that feels almost ludicrous given how anti-Big-Brother your average person is
[0] https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/how-nspm-7-seeks...
You see some form of resistance (the guy that was caught with a truck full of cut Flock cameras) but it seems the population is resigned.
It seems to be a type of psychological projection - someone harbors an ideal like a surveillance state and assumes everyone else is harboring the same ideal so they accuse them.
I hope the Uyghur genocide accusation doesn't turn out to be a confession.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite...
>With the end of World War II, Project SHAMROCK was established in 1945. The organization was created to accumulate telegraphic data entering and exiting from the United States.[4][22] Major communication companies such as Western Union, RCA Global and ITT World Communications actively aided the project, allowing American intelligence officials to gain access to international message traffic.[23] Under the project, and many subsequent programs, no precedent had been established for judicial authorization, and no warrants were issued for surveillance activities. The project was terminated in 1975.[4]
I was responding to the comment that said "Everyone who disagrees with the GOP is labeled antifa" with two of the many prominent Democrat politicians who haven't been. Should I have listed 50 of them or 100?
Delusions of grandeur / superiority complex much? Have you considered a posibility, that these voters just dont agree with your idea of what their best interests are?
>fictional terrorist organization called "antifa."
An organization so fictional, that just a few months back multiple members were convicted in a terrorist attack
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyedgnyn4mo
Antifa defenders just hide behind the fact that the movement is decentralized and leaderless by design, but that doesn't make it fictional.
They are obviously a terrorist organization and it is good to go after their financing and communication channels.
If a movement has no leaders at all then it's not an organization.
When Republicans in the US communicate and sometimes coordinate with totalitarian international leaders, does it mean we get to label the whole thing as a single "international totalitarian organization"?
“Organization” is a stretch. Criminals? Sure. Violent thugs? Maybe.
The “terrorist” word, however, has been stretched and distorted for political ends. It seems like any crime motivated by political or religious ideology is now “terrorism”, and thus subject to much harsher punishment than those same crimes would normally receive.
By this definition, the Jan 6 rioters were terrorists - yet they received pardons.
We need to roll back all those counter-terrorist laws in every Anglosphere country.
If people could imagine it being used against them, maybe they might understand. Like labeling the Republican party a terrorist organization because they sponsored Jan 6 insurrectionists.
Calling a movement an organization is a fiction, unless you live in an alternate reality. Should i consider you part of an organization because you tweeted a certain hashtag once? Are you the member of a band because you whistled a song on the subway? Are you in the military because you watched a Rambo movie when you were a teen?
I mean, there's not really room for debate on it. Voting to take your money away from you and give it to people who already have more money than they could spend in a lifetime is obviously against your interests. But that's what Republican policy does. That's why they have to make increasingly outlandish fictions and fund whole media empires to sell those fictions: to convince people to keep voting against themselves. Between either a billionaire, or the guy down the street making burritos for $8 an hour, it's obvious which one took all of your money. It's the guy with the money. The increasingly elaborate alternate reality exists to hide this from their voters, so they can keep raiding us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistici/Inventati
“Autistici/Inventati (A/I) is an Italian hacktivist group that provides Internet communication services for left-wing activists. It was founded in 2001 by members of the anti-globalisation movement…”
So unless you're willing to become a literal terrorist organization and die with a bunch of your friends in an uphill battle (not technically unwinnable, but at least lopsided and the casualties will be tremendous), the only option is to cave.
> violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion
> especially: violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror
Now, which actor in this story does this sound like? The webhoster exercising their speech rights or the apparatus bombing schools and weddings in order to get their way?
I don‘t see a difference. I was told this when I was a child, and as I’ve grown up and seen more of the world (including by immigrating to the USA) I am more convinced then ever. In my eyes, there is no meaningful difference between USA and NATO.
So even if you don’t believe it, the U.S. clearly cares about NATO member behaviour and therefore recognizes a distinction.
I recall this time as a very strong refusal of the above miscategorization of NATO. Bush and his cronies had a whole “you’re with us or against us” tantrum when NATO didn’t follow. I think Americans even did some proto-Trump trolling with “freedom fries” and other nonsense.
As for Iraq: UK, Poland, Spain, Portugal, and Denmark provided soldiers to partake in the illegal invasion. Even Iceland participated in the propaganda war by putting them self on the farcical “Coalition the willing” along plenty of other NATO countries.
It is very hard to see NATO as anything other then an extension of USA‘s imperial ambitions. It is as if in the year 1986 you would look at the Warsaw pact and claim this is a pact of independent nations and has nothing to do with the interest of the Soviet Union.
My last attempt to convince you: Ask your self, why did Iceland not vote in favor of a ban on nuclear weapons at the UN general assembly 2016? Why has Iceland still not signed and ratified the treaty? Why has no NATO member done so? Why are Austria and Ireland one of very few European nations to do so?
Aside from France and the UK, it is hard to find an answer here which does not include American imperialist agenda.
Iraq: Japan, Australia, Nicaragua, Philippines, Ukraine, Georgia... And I'm leaving like a dozen non-NATO countries, aligned AND unaligned with the US, that took part in the invasion or post-invasion missions. I don't agree with it, and while there were numerous lies to sell the invasion, equally numerous countries were unhappy about UNSCR 1441 being treated like toilet paper by the UN itself. Moreover, actual major NATO countries like Germany or France were diametrically opposed to the invasion and told the US to take a hike.
When you hold a hammer everything looks like a nail.
I also think that history has been far too kind to France’s supposed opposition to the illegal invasion. France stood firmly inside a military alliance who’s members broke international law and disregarded human rights. If France and Germany were serious about their supposed opposition to that war they would have at least threatened to withdraw. But such actions were never even considered. France and Germany were perfectly happy to allow American Imperialist agenda to materialize, even though most other NATO countries took a more active role in the crimes.
No, I'm saying that states are relatively free to agree or disagree with the US, at least until president 47. France faced no consequences, and countries like Nicaragua are on the opposite end of the geopolitcal spectrum with no particular interest in a war on the other side of the world.
Because whether Iraq or Afghanistan bear the historical hallmarks of imperialism is up to debate, especially with Afghanistan with clear casus belli, stated war objectives, and no intention to annex or directly control/govern the territory. The actual number of countries supporting either is a good metric on that; I think Afghanistan war had a much wider support for a reason. Putting both conflicts together is simplistic, if not disingenuous.
>France stood firmly inside a military alliance who’s members broke international law and disregarded human rights.
The USSR stood inside an economic and arguably military alliance with literal Hitler until 41. The USSR fed the Wehrmacht, fueled their tanks, and provided metals for their war machine. Mentioning this since you already mentioned you're on the left side of the spectrum. Can we call the USSR as subservient to Third Reich imperialism?
Breaking an alliance simply because an ally does something you don't agree with, while morally commendable, it is also simplistic. France didn't pull out, like nobody pulled out when France was committing atrocities in Algeria, or when Turkey invaded Cyprus; no Warsaw Pact countries left during Hungary 56, Albania did leave because of Prague 68 but only because of it being the last straw on their already strained relations, like CSTO countries aren't pulling out because of Russian imperialism in Ukraine, Georgia or Moldova. Armenia is trying to pull out only because the CSTO wasn't there when it was needed, that is, when the treaty doesn't address its very own points.
Alliances are born out of self-interest, not out of moral purity or consistency.
Yes we can, we should, and we do. People on the left (aside from actual Stalinist) do admit that this alliance was bad, kind of like how liberals admit how the British government was wrong to pursue the strategy of appeasement.
What makes this different though is that both Stalin and the British government (under new leadership albeit) reversed course and fought and defeated fascism. We have not seen France nor Germany do this. To the contrary.
> Alliances are born out of self-interest.
This is the world we live in, but we don‘t have to accept it, and we can and should pressure our leaders into making the moral choice. Perhaps a better world is possible, and perhaps blaming our leaders for moral failures is our way to a better world.
Smoke screen.
The USA launches its attacks from the territories of NATO members.
NATO has been involved in every war crime the USA has committed this century.
NATO countries, yes (mostly the Brits and Polish). NATO as an organization, only for Serbia and Afghanistan.
https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-mark-rutte-italy-us-bas...
NATO Chief, Rutte: "Europe is a platform of power projection for the United States."
Of course, the local political cover story in Italy is that these bases are 'only used for logistics, never direct attacks', but that's just a cover story to deflect any retribution Italy may receive from Iran and its allies, for Italy's participation in the US' heinous acts, and to keep the internal messaging politically correct within Italys' current circus ...
https://en.lasicilia.it/news/italy-world/3052391/the-us-iran...
This is just posturing to avoid retribution. Everyone in Europe knows that NATO bases have been used almost every day since April 2003 by the US to commit its crimes.
Lets also admit that NATO-aligned bases in Poland and Germany are also essential to the US' crimes.
See also, Camp Darby near Pisa, actively supporting NATO and U.S. European and African Command operations.
Remove any qualifier and you end up in some other category.
Furthermore, the noblogs.org platform (previously hosted by A/I) is used to host a lot of politically-motivated content, including news and statements by various resistance groups across the world, which of course is considered terrorist by the USA, but legally should fall under freedom of the press.
Honestly, the internet has made folks so lazy. It's very ironic that the most "revolutionary" act taken recently (January 6) was actually done by the far-right. Yeah: if you believe in something, you need to actually get out of the basement, grab a gun, and storm the Capitol. And if you take it all the way, a lot of people are going to die. That's how revolution works. Unless we're all LARPing?
But Americans/Westerners (left, right, center) are way too comfortable for a revolution, so for people that are, or have been, actual dissidents (think Arab Spring, or IRA, or ETA, or whatever), this is all just a big meme.
What did work for them was pouring money into the election system and party apparatus, media, the courts and then taking control over politics
That helped them take control of politics. And so that tactic will surely turn people to violence again. The violence itself may not be effective but the level of outrage is.
Might want to let the Democrats know that. According to them the government was >this< close to being overthrown. Which is funny, because if anyone truly believes that, we don't stand a chance against pretty much any country on earth.
FTFY
The one person who died violently was one of the rioters, an unarmed woman who was shot by Capitol Police. Four other rioters died of natural causes around the time of the riot.
At that rate, how many can even be left by now?
> * U.S. representative Markwayne Mullin [currently head of DHS], a witness to Babbitt's attempted breach, said that Byrd "didn't have a choice" but to shoot, and that his action "saved people's lives".* [0]
The shooting was deemed “lawful and within department policy”.
I do not disagree with this at all. I only mentioned her death as contrast to the usual rhetoric of how the mob at the Capitol "killed" Officer Sicknick and others (who are always mysteriously unnamed).
Police and security trying to manage a dynamic situation with minimum loss of life by not immediately gunning down quasi-violent crowd is a more reasonable conclusion.
Regardless, 100% of which is Trump's fault for incitement.
if that happened to me at work it would be something I talked about all the time, there are a thousand ways it could have gotten even worse
The whole plan after the judicial effort failed (using the courts to overturn the vote outcome) and the individual shakedowns failed (calling up governors and demanding they change the vote outcome) was to pressure senators to throw out the state certificates, kick them back to the states, and have the states decide that Trump won instead. They had a whole slate of fraudulent shadow certificates with Trump as the winner ready for Senators to certify. That 10000% would have worked because there are more red states than blue, so they would have just picked Trump over Biden.
But Pence refused to go along with the plan. So the mob was the last ditch effort to convince the senators. Its purpose was not to kill the senators but to delay the vote to give more time to affect the influence campaign. So that plan was also very very close to working because they did delay the vote. It only didn't work because Mitch McConnell refused to end the session and kept everyone around to complete the certification of the vote on January 7. But the fact that it happened on January 7 means that the plan very nearly worked.
You need to look at J6 as a buffer overflow attack. There are no instructions for what to do if the J6 vote is disrupted by a mob, the hope was that but putting the country in that illegal state would allow for arbitrary instructions to be executed.
[1] https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/absolute-hero-capitol-...
You can be the judge as to whether it succeeded or victory was deferred, but violence definitely won in the end.
The fight is to never get to this situation again and to keep the rights people died for you to have.
You act like things are binary “comfort” vs “horrible life”. It’s not like Fascism grows slowly and then suddenly you are locked.
People that had enough money that they weren't paying attention to the price of groceries before Trump, probably still don't care all that much now. I might eat out less, but that's not worth abandoning my family or dying over to me.
It takes 3.5% of the population to effect change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.5%25_rule
I think this was an inevitable outcome of western culture's individualism being inherently selfish.
This is not what happened on J6, and is specifically why it was not an insurrection.
It's a shame we went so light on them. Care bear punishment. Sweetheart deals, and then pardoned by a man that literally, factually, supports terrorism against the USA and supporting the attempted assassination of his VP.
Geronimo.
Or sue, or organize and protest, or win the next election. Not every government problem warrants revolution, and not needing to revolt is not a failing of the people.
> Americans/Westerners (left, right, center) are way too comfortable for a revolution
A better read is that the situation for most Americans and "Westerners" whatever that means, is that things are good enough that the people do not see value in revolution, or they are able to adjust the government's course enough through elections, redress, courts and other political feedback mechanisms.
Or maybe people realize that revolutions, and the civil war that almost always ensue, are a very high price to pay, for a very uncertain reward.
Talking about the Arab spring, look what it lead to:
- Egypt and Tunisia are again being lead by a dictator, it's just a younger one.
- Libya is destroyed, lacks leadership and conflict could resume any day should Haftar decide he doesn't like the result of the upcoming (but long postponed) elections.
- Syria has suffered the worst civil war of the decade and the situation is still very brittle. It looks like Jolani could bring redemption to Syria, but with the Israeli playing around with fire it could also collapse any day. And that's assuming Jolani doesn't turn into a dictator himself: we're not talking about someone with a good track record of honoring his promises (which is a good thing when the promise is made to ISIS or Al Qaeda, but still).
Well, it is a mafia. See the international court investigating war crimes is also targeted by the orange clown-brigade mafia.
> the only option is to cave
Objectively speaking you are correct, but I don't think this has to be the case. For instance, why is that orange mafia so powerful? That is the thing that has to be fixed on every level, not just by taking back what their billionaires stole from us.
And in case the wedding reference wasn't explicit enough, this isn't just Trump, it was also Obama.
It pains me to summon the specter of "both sides" because the Republicans are so much worse. But the majority of national level Democrats aren't inherently good. They are just less bad (and on some issues they can be close to equally as bad).
Most should take those odds over giving up another inch of freedom.
We really need laws removing the power from the President to unilaterally declare organizations terrorists. At least not long term without their ability to fight the designation in court.
(Same for tariffs. There is no case where one needs emergency power to tariff or sanction anything. If you need to conduct urgent police action, court-ordered asset freezes are plenty.)
We’re in a globalized world with aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons. The fallacy of thinking a major economy (or significant nation) can decouple from any expansionist regime is a lesson I thought we learned from the first half of the last century.
At invading or achieving any geopolitical objective, yes (though I wouldn’t compare the American military-industrial base to Russia’s). At causing at least as much chaos as sanctions, no.
The Russian weapons (at various points) were missing critical components, maintenance, fuel, etc.
The US weapons appear to have functioned as specified, but the commander-in-chief appears to know marginally less about the Iranian strategic situation than I personally do. And this is not a boast, I have zero military training and only follow the occasional commentator like Anders Puck Nielsen and read the odd Wikipedia page when something surprising comes up in the news or a comment, and pay enough attention to the news and comments to be capable of surprise, it's just that I asked someone around 20 years ago if the War On Terror would go to Iran given all the obvious threads leading there, and they told me it would go down basically as we saw it going down this year: very expensive, no real progress, strategic failure no matter what military victories happen.
Only then will you have the moral altitude you profess to have with the rest of the world, and not until then.
"Terrorist" is just this centurys' n-word - a phrase which racists cannot overtly use any more so they invented a new term to supplant it.
American here. This is a non-starter. Nobody does it. And war is a domain where leading on moral authority requires firepower to back it.
We don’t agree on what does and doesn’t constitute a war crime, the term seems to cover almost all war as well as actions taken by every global and regional power in almost every military action they’ve each taken.
We need reform. But pretending we can legally ban war is silly.
The USA is the worlds #1 funder of terrorism and its #1 fighter of illegal, criminal wars. Until the American people start demanding justice for the crimes for which their state is responsible, we are all going down the drain with the USA and its war criminals.
You can’t do this when nobody else does, and particularly not when pretty much every act of war in the world is alleged to be a war crime by activists. In practice, all war appears to be illegal under international law. That makes the law untenable, which may be part of why it’s being ignored.
> Until the American people start demanding justice for the crimes for which their state is responsible
I agree that we need a framework limiting the U.S. military under U.S. law. But someone needs to propose something realistic.
If you're going to dance around pretending to be the only world power, you have to set the example you want to see of the other 'lesser nations' which are subject to your war criminals' purposes.
>every act of war in the world is alleged to be a war crime by activists.
So what you're really saying is that warriors should always be senior to activists.
This problem runs deep.
>I agree that we need a framework limiting the U.S. military under U.S. law.
No, I'm saying that the U.S. needs to stop being a criminal nation beholden only unto itself.
Which is partly or mostly our fault.
Maybe we could concentrate on doing less of that.
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.
> Which is partly or mostly our fault.
It does contradict the original claim because it's 3 examples of things we didn't cause - and he said "mostly our fault". If it takes 3 seconds to think of things we didn't cause, then the world's craziness is not mostly the fault of America. Mostly the US has a hand in stopping communist governments where the citizens are kept as slaves.
You should be a lot less confident in your opinions. The war on drugs required violent interventions against drug production in Mexico, which directly created militarized, violent drug cartels.
Example: pressured by the US, Felipe Calderón launched Operation Michoacán in 2006 with U.S. backing and funding. He deployed tens of thousands of federal forces. Mexico has recorded more than 463,000 homicides since that declaration of war on the cartels, a huge increase.
Just look at the data.
> and he said "mostly our fault". If it takes 3 seconds to think of things we didn't cause
He said "mostly" because he knows there are counterexamples, so providing counterexamples doesn't contradict his point.
> Mostly the US has a hand in stopping communist governments where the citizens are kept as slaves.
This is such a genuinely undiscriminating statement that I can't help but categorize it as dumb. I don't usually say this, but you need to stop listening to propaganda and pick up a few actual history books. Until you do, any discussion is pointless, because you're so stuck in your ideology that facts can't penetrate the bubble.
That's really all I have for you. It's up to you to fix yourself.
Have to stop you right there. The “war on drugs” absolutely has created the conditions for the drug trade and the murders. If you criminalize a large part of the economy, then only criminals will profit from it. If we had sane drug policy, there would not be the profit that attracts these criminals. Additionally, the US intelligence services (and other nations) have a long documented role in cultivating the drug trade for diverse reasons: for profit and paying for operations, for control of regions, and to provide a reservoir of violence to disguise or facilitate their work.
How do you like them apples?
I’m from Latin America and it’s 100% the fault of some of our own corrupt governments and us people living in those places.
Emphasis on “some,” because countries like Chile, Costa Rica, Uruguay and lately Argentina and El Salvador are showing that less government intervention in economic matters and a zero-bullshit policy on crime is how you turn things around to something that reminisces a somewhat livable country.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m grateful for many things the USA has done, and for the inventiveness and generosity of its people; but let’s not pretend like their government(s) have been the kindest or most terror-free in the past decades.
The USA can be both a good and bad thing. And terrorism, by definition, is a bit of what they do abroad.
China, Egypt to do away with the use of the US dollar - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49555056 - September 2026
China nears launch of mBridge as alternative to Swift - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48636931 - June 2026
For most banks the ability to sell financial instruments which end up interacting with the US financial institutions is fundamental.
I'm not sure the payment system is most banks primary concern. Being able to buy/sell US securities turns out to be a fairly fundamental part of the modern economy
It’s not a particularly high bar, but of the big powers, only China currently meets it.
And I know you will say „but payment networks are not a warfare question, they are an economic question“ but that kind of breaks down when they are used to sanction ICC judges presiding over war crime cases.
However, currently, only US and Russia have publicly threatened my country, and both are currently engaged in a trade war with us.
China on the other hand is selling us cheap batteries and solar panels.
Of course, that's an _if_, not something to just take for granted.
This is why Europe needs to detach itself from the American banking system.
It used to be very practical to use it. Countries renounced to some sovereignty in exchange for ease of doing business. The USA had an advantage but it didn't abuse it too much.
The current situation is that the USA is asking to forfeit sovereignty and to control business in an ideological basis. There is a strong incentive to leave that system as the alternative is become a colony of the USA. And the push for colonization is not subtle as the president takes over other countries resources like Venezuela's oil or tries to take control of the straight of Hormuz (None part of the USA at this moment)
Totally true. The EU needs its own platforms, I hope that better regulated than their USA counterparts. Linux started in Europe, it should have been promoted more for internal usage. But privatization of state-owned companies made it ideologically impossible to push for it. Public good was seen as "bad" and "against business", I hope that the obvious failure of that policy makes it now a possibility to use Linux.
So far, what it's detached itself from its sources of fossil fuels. With a little help from its great American friends.
The US is going to be at peace with Russia, and still pumping anti-Russian rhetoric into Europe to keep them buying US LNG. The big difference will be that they'll start mixing more Trump-Russia rhetoric in - but the result is that they'll be more dependent on the US. The anti-China rhetoric is working great, too.
The best thing for a Europe that wants to separate from the US is to completely isolate themselves from any possible energy or trade replacement for the US./s
That being said, in Europe it's a small elite class (that is still fairly firmly in control of everything) that pushes this (on direct orders and direct payments from US masters.) The rising degree of control of speech and association they have to exert, and the direct election interference they've had to engage in is very disturbing to a plurality of the European population. And that normally politically disengaged plurality is becoming politically active as their living standards drop.
The US isn't really a source of anti-Russia rhetoric. In fact, the US may be the biggest source of pro-Russia rhetoric, with Trump constantly sucking up to Putin and repeating Kremlin talking points.
It's easy for Americans, who are essentially uninvadable, to discount this as just people saying stuff, but in Europe, we actually have to live with Russia's direct military threat.
If you mean EU borders - it's had direct border with Russia since 1995.
If you mean in the sense of placing NATO troups on border with Russia, that is indeed recent, and definitely a concern, but - those west-European countries have gone along with expanding NATO eastwards.
If you mean the supposed fear of Russia conquering Poland - then that is not really serious.
> we actually have to live with Russia's direct military threat.
So far in this war, it is German and other European & NATO member state weapons being intentionally fired into Russia, not the other way around.
Of course, if you look further back, Russia has invaded westwards multiple times over the centuries, and European powers have indaded Russia multiple times: Sweden, France, Germany. But mutual perception as threats is something almost any pair of European states can be said to have in their past. And the distances are even closer than Russia and Germany.
Have you really had your head in the sand, or are you just desperately trying to sell a transparent lie here? The Putin is not exactly careful about his threats.
Just have not yet done it.
Oh wait!
Hmm. So they are going by “A/I vets its users” and users sabotaged rail systems so therefore A/I is materially assisting terrorists? I wonder how this vetting works? Do users have to submit government issued documents, write essays? Do they make users sign non-violence agreement ToS. I mean heck, Facebook and Twitter has material supporting various things like that and US government is designated them as terrorists.
The government isn't attesting to your capabilities - that is still on you as a citizen.
>... background check
Who requires these background checks? Because the seller wouldn't do them unless obligated. Obviously the check and paperwork around it constitutes at least a de facto application to the government for permission to purchase the firearm.
It is absolute nonsense to ignore why the law exists while you complain about it existing.
It’s nonsense to pretend it came out of no where for no reason.
Some of the claims are interesting - "Decision making in the group takes places collectively instead of through majority voting." - isn't explained by the sourced article.
Those two words refer to the same "type" of system where the members make a decision by ascent or descent. Both systems require an agreed upon barrier of acceptance.
They are the same. The US congress reaches decision by consensus.
And of course if that person turns out to have bad judgement they won't listen to him next time.
It is certainly possible for this to become unstable and split into two or more groups. This may work for the IETF which frequently creates and destroys working groups.
An ignorant/manipulated majority can not decide over my natural rights. 51% of men can not vote in favor of raping 49% of women, that's why 49% of women should be armed and capable of mutually assured destruction as a deterrent (pick gender, race, religion, whatever, applies to all minorities). That's just philosophy, in real life the powerful fucks the weak, and that's how it works. 'Disarm the people' is the first step in the road to slavery. Of course an armed disfunctional society like the US is also not the best solution to the problems the state creates. So we keep thinking and philosophizing, until that day comes...
Btw, I am a philosophical anarchist, I don't throw molotovs or wear masks but I do hate the state with a passion, and I like to think about how a free world should work, and currently the US is the antithesis of that
I have experienced this kind of language personally back when the collective started (they have root in the no-global movement, a protest group that contributed to the violence at the Genova G8).
At the time I was a young activist on their side, but the 'we are not violent' wink-wink nudge-nudge attitude was not main stream but very much all over the place and became hard to ignore.
[1]https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...
edit: forgot the link to the designation
As if that holds any value, especially considering the rest of your comment, which completely ignores the rhetoric of that "designation".
That designation is toilet paper - the wording "violent Antifa cells" in the second sentence should be the wake up signal.
> they have root in the no-global movement, a protest group
There was/is no protest group called the no-global movement - you are using language the same way Trump & co. use the word antifa. And using language like Trump & co. is not a good look.
> that contributed to the violence at the Genova G8.
That was the black-bloc, maybe a few hundred or thousand actors within a protest of up to 300k people. I am leaving out the many controversies regarding the infiltrators in the black bloc and the manufactured "evidence" like planted molotov cocktails in the Diaz school.
And we all know who else contributed to the violence, but you conveniently left that out. Carlo Giuliani was killed by police. Same police that raided a school and charged peaceful protesters.
I am not saying that you have to hold my experience to any value, but I am stating that was my experience. Anyone is free to interpret as they prefer, but I would question your argument as to why. It sounds a lot like "whataboutism". The fact that the designation is bad does not change my experience with the rhetoric of the collective.
If you'd rather know why I do not express much judgement on the designation: I did not pass any judgement of the dialectic in the designation because I don't claim to have the same experience with such - or any - dialect in English.
I also state that 'a broken clock ...' underlining - I thought - the fact that I don't think the US government does normally much good.
> "violent Antifa cells" in the second sentence should be the wake up signal.
It's not as obvious to me as it is to you why "violent antifa cells" is a wake up signal. Would you mind explaining further?
> There was/is no protest group called the no-global movement.. you are using language the same way Trump & co
Admittedly, these are memories from quite a while ago, I don't exclude some of them might be wrong, but as much as it's not a movement with a cohesive leadership and structured belief, for what it's worth, wikipedia seems to agree with me on the existence of a "No global movment" and its connection with the Genova G8 issues [1]. I would invite you to avoid name calling, such as comparing me to Trump :D
I had no connection with black bloc, and while I agree with you that it was a small minority in the protest having violent intentions, I disagree that only black bloc was to blame for those violent intentions.
I also don't absolve the police, what happened was horrifying, but this again does not take away from the fact that the rhetoric used in the communication by the collective reminds me of the 'not so not violent' groups that at the very least orbited the violence, and, in my personal opinion, very much winked at and approved of it.
I don't see you make an argument contrary to what I am saying other than discrediting my own experience based on the fact that - in your opinion - I don't criticize both sides equally?
> question your argument as to why.
I am also Italian, and I don't feel that "the dialectic and rhetoric" of their statements in any way gives and credibility to the US designation of a "violent antifa cells" equating them to terrorists on the level of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and so on. So there's that, being Italian is not some skill or ability that allows you or me to better understand their statements, especially since they are also translated to English...
> the same experience with such - or any - dialect in English.
That sounds like a cop-out to me, you obviously can express yourself in English quite well, and even if that were not the case phrases like "violent antifa cells", "far-left terrorist networks, built to enable them to organize, recruit, communicate, disseminate propaganda, share target information and tactics, and carry out violent attacks" should clearly show that is nothing more than the lowest form of fearmongering, propaganda and silencing of dissent by an authoritarian government.
Furthermore, especially as Italians, we should support these projects and not give in to notions that "maybe the broken fascist clock is right once in a while".
> wikipedia seems to agree with me on the existence of a "No global movment"
The first sentence: indica organizzazioni non governative, associazioni e singoli individui relativamente ETEROGENEI.
As you put it previously, "a protest group", does not at all convey the notion that these are many people with differing views, and as such there may well be also a violent minority like in any group. No, your comment paints them all with the same brush.
> such as comparing me to Trump :D
I did not compare you as a person to Trump, but the way you are misusing words.
> does not take away from the fact that the rhetoric used in the communication by the collective reminds me of the 'not so not violent' groups that at the very least orbited the violence, and, in my personal opinion, very much winked at and approved of it.
This would be the point were you cite some sources or quotes that give you that impression, rather than relying on your "Italianness" to support your argument.
> in your opinion - I don't criticize both sides equally?
As Italians we should criticize only one side and that is the fascists.
> being Italian is not some skill
Some of the A/I statements being in Italian, and some of the seditious rhetoric being known to me because I have experienced the Italian far left, I think it is a relevant 'competency' in this thread.
> That sounds like a cop-out to me..
It's a good thing I have no obligation of par-conditio :D
Anyway, whether the US document is good or not was not my point, and I never hinted at the fact that it might be good. I repeat that I don't think it is. You are rather just using that to ignore the point I was attempting to make, which is that the language used by the collective is reminding me of language that winks at violence.
> As Italians we should criticize only one side and that is the fascists.
I reject the requirement you try to impose on me of criticizing only the fascists, as if far left - which this collective definitely was - is tolerable or ok or positive. I do not agree. I prefer to keep my own independence of thought, and would rather point out your statement being ironically oppressive.
My impression is that they didn’t say “hey we don’t have customer information but we don’t service violent groups and we will responsibly investigate and discontinue service to offenders.”
Their vibe was much more defiant, like, “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.”
Is it right for the US to be the global arbiter of this issue and domains in general? Of course not.
If that's disqualifying, a lot of US government contractors are in trouble.
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?
Meanwhile, Signal requires a phone number, so it knows much more about your identity than A/I did.
Several fediverse instances have the same thing. It's just a freeform textbox saying why do you want an account.
Now, if you are against private conversations, please state so clearly so we know which side of the fence you lean towards.
> The A/I Collective… manually vets all potential users for ideological affinity before granting them access to its infrastructure.
What is the truth behind that? Such behaviour would undermine A/I’s claim they are akin to Gmail if they explicitly are not a neutral ISP. After that, it becomes a question of degrees: what were their specific criteria for access to the platform?
Asking out of genuine curiosity. I wasn’t familiar with this group before today.
A lot of the state department’s claims of “violent groups” are BS but it also seems like a non-zero number of them are pretty violent organizations.
There’s a big difference between “we have designed our devices to be zero-knowledge but we act swiftly against violent/illegal activity if it’s discovered” versus “we actively endorse the views of our user base.”
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/trumps-nspm-7-labels-commo...
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-man-sentenced-to-30-years... https://portside.org/2026-06-25/injustice-how-leftist-zines-...)
The worst reason to hate it is that it relies on proving intent (dolus specialis), which essentially makes it unenforceable unless the perpetrator is a group of simpletons.
It really hit me when I realized that there are only two ways to prove intent: The criminal admits it, or the prosecution proves that there are literally zero other possible explanations that could possibly fit the actions.
So - Back to the point. Did the USA assist people guilty of genocide by your own chosen definition? Not if there could be literally any other intention.
Keep in mind that Hamas's own convention (1988) clearly declares that they partly exist as a group for the purpose of wiping Israel out, and they did actually perpetrate October 7th. It would be very difficult for even the best lawyer in the world to argue that self-defense couldn't be at least one possible intention, and given that the nation of Israel probably has one or two decent lawyers, they'd likely be able to come up with a few other possible intentions as well, but they only need one to completely avoid prosecution.
A second reason to hate it is that it doesn't carve out exceptions for mutual combat situations, even the ones that that have been dragging on for thousands of years. When two religious groups or ethnicities from neighboring regions fight each other in open combat few reasonable people would refer to that as a genocide, but it might be considered genocide against both sides if we interpret the UN Convention as it was actually ratified.
> even the intellectually laziest persons
Yo mama.
To be more serious, this wasn't necessary and was rude. What was your goal? To convince me? To convince others? Neither are best accomplished with this sort of behavior.
I doubt we'll have absolute certainty about genocide until Nuremberg-style trials take place. The problem is such trials won't happen unless the international community intervenes, and they don't seem willing to intervene without 100% certainty. Chicken-egg problem.
My goal wasn't to convince you. My goal was to answer your question even though you were, in my opinion, intellectually lazy when you asked it. Now you pretend you've done your homework and suddenly are an expert on definitions of genocide, of course. That's great! At least you've read the convention now.
Seriously, though, it seems striking to me that you asked in bad faith, and I'm not interested in discussing this matter any further. Ask non-rhetorical questions only if you don't believe to know the answer yet!
Circumstances were created. The destruction of a group also happened in a significant part, and it's only not more horrendous than it already is just because of massive international support to Palestinians, on whose destruction americans participated in very significant part. Almost all of it was done by american supplied bombs, inluding the mass killings of entire families that are still being brought out of rubble to this day, burried by 100s suffocated or burned alive at the time, with their children, women and men, in covardly night attacks from high above.
Like this thing: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/9/5/gaza-teams-recover-r...
Or surprise daylight rushhour mass bombings during ceasefires that killed hundreds of children alone in one go in a day.
This is what I get in mind when I hear "americans" now. This is what americans enabled on purpose. Blergh. Unprovoked aggressions against other countries, like Iran in the last instance that led to permanently increased fuel prices and making everyone poorer around the world, also adds to feeling of disgust when hearing "americans" these days. Americans will learn in time that some things are hard to repair. And their apparent ignorance of what they do in the world and how they are perceived due to that will hit a wall soon enough.
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.
A bunch of my comments were mysteriously deadened and I have no idea why - they aren't flagged. This was among them. Maybe it was a retaliation for talking about HN's filtering?
> To be hosted on our servers you have to share our principles of anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia, and anti-militarism
It is the first line of https://www.inventati.org/who/policy
The "Western hemisphere" (which, of course, is neither) tolerates the US and the way it enforces its decisions outside its own borders, because it used to provide some assurance of stability and protection. But as the US rescinds that policy, weakens Nato, declares a tariffs war to every country on earth, etc., there will be less and less justification as well as, probably (hopefully) less and less public acceptance for any of this posturing.
always has been
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.
And ultimately these statements aren't for the normal citizens. They're for the truly strange, the racists, and the trolls.
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.
Now, what about A/I group? Ah… well, there is your answer.
Yes, in my local food distribution networks here in France, quite a few people had autistici emails registered on our mailing list.
Don't talk about something you don't know like you do and you're smarter than anyone.
I’m sure their helpful functions will be picked up by another group that wants to do good work without USAID money.
> The anarchist cells responsible for sabotaging rail systems across France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands in 2026, relied on A/I Collective tools and services to claim responsibility for the attacks, publish official communiqués, and disseminate manuals for constructing improvised incendiary devices to target railways and other critical infrastructure.
> The anarchist cell responsible for sabotaging the Transalpine Pipeline (TAL) in March 2026, which temporarily halted crude oil flows to Austria, Germany, and the Czech Republic, relied on A/I Collective tools and services to claim responsibility for the attack and publish official communiqués, as well as to disseminate a manifesto calling for additional attacks on critical infrastructure and referring adherents to another A/I Collective platform, which provides detailed sabotage manuals as well as maps of vulnerable critical infrastructure across North America.
> The far-left extremist network responsible for multiple arson attacks and acts of sabotage against Germany’s rail and energy infrastructure between 2011 and 2026, including a January 2026 attack on Berlin’s power grid that cut power to 45,000 households and resulted in a fatality, relied on A/I Collective tools and services to claim responsibility for attacks, publish official communiques, and disseminate a manifesto calling for additional attacks on energy infrastructure worldwide.
Seems quite specific to me.
Are those terrorist organizations too?
Moreover, ask yourself: why hasn't Germany accused A/I of being co-responsible of the attacks?
And maybe they used a Google camera for taking photos of their acts.
By the same logic, what prevents US from labelling Signal, Proton, and Google as ones supporting terrorist organizations?
Technical intermediaries could be held responsible specifically for hosting the manifestos (under freedom of the press laws), but that requires an actual due process. Meanwhile, 100% of the authors and websites who inspired or relayed Anders Brejvik and other neo-fascist terrorists are still online and are not facing any kind of repression.
This is the standard of communication for the Trump administration.
Pun intended?
https://datarepublican.com/noblogs/
There's a "Dashboard" view in the top right that is easier to skim.
This is true in Italy, the United States, Russia, China, and with yesterday's victory of AfD in Sachsen-Anhalt I see the trajectory of it becoming true in Germany too very soon.
And a lot of the comments in this so-called community of so-called hackers are very disheartening, have any of you even read the Hackers Manifesto? Are you just going to shut your eyes in front of the evidence, as long as your pockets and bellies are full?
The mere fact that revolution exists disproves this statement.
Punish those trying to stop it by coming back stronger. Spin up in a few new countries if you have to.
Friends and I have been giving out free shell accounts, service hosting, and mentorship for anon randos for over 25 years. Apparently this makes us cyber-terrorists. Neat!
We have had our infrastructure taken from us many times, and quickly come back online, often in a new country, every time.
Looking forward to 25 more years of people trying to kill us. Every attempt makes us stronger and smarter.
https://www.inventati.org/donate
Should have focused on Monero donations from the get-go. Banks are a plague. Like what is a group like this using banks for or at least diversifying??
It's like choosing not to use E2EE.
It's not even left political groups that get debanked or screwed—it's everyone often.
Even GrapheneOS, but intelligently, they use crypto heavily:
>Unfortunately, PayPal permanently locked our GrapheneOS Foundation account today. No reason has been provided for the account being locked. All we've done is accept donations. We added our bank account information yesterday in order to begin withdrawing money and it was locked.
https://xprivate.lol/GrapheneOS/status/1684663777273233408
https://xprivate.lol/GrapheneOS/search?f=tweets&q=Pay+monero...
If anyone from A/I is reading this know you always have a place to stay/eat if you need it
How will that be if the resistance is not visible to the public. What are all the people using their services supposed to do? I’m guessing there are plans to reform in a few years. Why is the Italian government not protecting them?
The Italian police wiretapped them for one year without them knowing.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistici/Inventati
Italian Postal Police wiretapping (2004–2005)
This is exactly where the power structures want the struggle to be , online, with no real consequences that matter.
The best thing that could happen to the internet and society would be that it would be absolutely illegal to post anything inciting resistance or change of any kind on the internet.
Then, the resistance would go back to being real people in real rooms, secrets and whispers and actual plots to effect change in society for a more equitable and prosperous human future.
Because that’s how real change takes place. The powerful don’t try to make change by posting on instagram. (Advertisement and PR of course, but it’s not the organizational nexus) they gather in conference rooms, talk in person, and have social gatherings where they decide your future.
When they do use the internet to coordinate, it’s not in public forums, it’s encrypted communications, targeted and limited in scope.
The internet is useful, of course, and encrypted communication in private groups, even darkweb resources. But thinking you can use the official structure of the internet (public domain infrastructure, dns, walled gardens) as a primary means of subverting the dominant paradigm is foolish at best, suicidally counterproductive on the normative.
The internet was once subversive in and of itself. It no longer is. Now you’re just wearing signs at the mall.
The revolution thrives underground, not out in the open.
Underground resistance forms out of existing "underground" social networks - social clubs, friends, people who know each other through any means. There's no longer any underground socialising at scale. We use the internet for it, where talk of resistance is strictly banned.
Even when you talk offline it's monitored. If you talk in the vicinity of an LG TV, it's converting your speech to text and uploading it to their servers, ostensibly for AI training.
It’s actually not that hard to go to places where phones, cameras, and internet access is banned or heavily discouraged, and guess what? It’s just people talking to each other, like we did up until the mid 90s. Just providing a technology free context is enough to get people to talk to each other.
I am a huge technology freak, but I can’t reasonably deny what I see, and that is that communications technology, in its present form, has been a terrible disaster for human communication because it made it effortless.
As it turns out, making it effortless also made people not value it at an interpersonal level, and to lessen the value of all of the cultural machinery that hinges on communication ( and the effort of it) as a central pivot.
Every step that makes communication more instantaneous and effortless undermines the value of character, honesty, and accountability.
Follow this and you can see how this has brought us to where we are today, step by step, starting with the telegraph.
It is also not like Palestinian activism is blocked on X, despite people here saying that only Nazis are on X and everything is censored:
While this is very heavy handed censorship, there are plenty of ways around it.
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, ELN, NPA, PFLP, and PIJ. That same media group was cited in a federal complaint against a domestic terrorist sentenced to 19 years for attacking a federal building and a police car with IEDs.”
Is that Hezbollah's little brother?
Are the Dutch more clarifying for you?
https://pt.icct.nl/article/hizballah-africa
Or how about the Brits?
https://search-uk-sanctions-list.service.gov.uk/designations...
A worldview of "America dumb" is a boring way to go through life, especially with topics about which you clearly have a very limited understanding.
They will fabricate anything to justify their thinly veiled intentions.
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.
https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...
It means the government won.
Edit: just so we are clear, I’ve no idea what A/I is, the linked page gave no details, nor do the current top comments. The current top comment is rambling about free shell accounts and stuff. The ones I read after that were mourning the loss of this mysterious site/service/something. Does anyone want to clueinthe rest of us?
From what I could gather, it seems various governments accused them of deliberately providing infrastructure to groups whose violent activities they supported, such as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), with communications associated with railway sabotage, attacks on energy infrastructure and the “Jane’s Revenge” arson campaign (whatever the hell that is).
Here’s a snippet I found on the net: "Italian police installed a server backdoor in 2004 during an investigation into the anarchist collective Crocenera. It was discovered in 2005. According to contemporary EDRi reporting, the access potentially exposed communications belonging to thousands of unrelated users; EDRi explicitly noted that actual collection of unrelated data had not been proven. EDRi’s contemporary report"
Huge disclaimer on this, since it’s just my musings: This might be one of the situations where both sides are in the wrong. It’s possible that A/I willfully turned a blind eye to actual illegal activity by its users, and refused to cooperate with legal investigations. At the same time, various governments, including mine, overreacted and behaved unethically and maybe even illegally because A/I “didn’t want to play ball.”
Just speculation. But the fact that I can’t easily find concrete examples of what A/I supposedly did wrong makes me inclined to feel sympathy for them. I hate unspecific allegations like “facilitation of problematic and terroristic-adjacent activities.” That’s some 1984-ish bullshit.
I have no clue what I’m talking about here, though. Strange situation and too little information...
I mean, the capitalist system is a barbaric system with defenders that do make opposition illegal...
How about workers rights? Slavery? Any progress that you'd think of as civilizing was not achieved without blood.
See also the Velvet Revolution for a pretty large shift away from totalitarianism without any deaths.
You could say that about anything classified as human progress. How did we improve things so that people could have electricity and safety? At the cost of deaths and suffering by everyone who built the Hoover Dam and similar projects. The same goes for "stop killing patients by going dirty from corpses to the delivery room," even when we knew it was unsafe. There is always death and blood related to any topic. How do you think you got the device you are communicating with? Through the death and suffering of someone in Congo, mining cobalt, and someone working themselves to death in a factory.
I have lived through the normalization of gay rights in Norway, and saying that it was a process marked by blood and suffering is moronic. It was painful, unnecessary, overdue, and many other things. But saying that it was a bloody conflict is just not true, at least not any more than many other progressive movements. So progress doesn't have to be violent.
You could say that this is not the lived experience of many people, and that is true. But that doesn’t automatically mean it has to be so for everybody, and it does not have to be inevitable for any cause. It’s not statistically more violent than many other things.
I’m getting tired of the violent and angry rhetoric people spew without pushback. Stop idealizing and glorifying violence and conflict to solve any problem. It seems more and more to me that this is violent ideation first, with the cause being secondary.
The only thing the oppressed can do is to be uncomfortable, organize, and not let the system claim their souls and bodies. The only thing the system does is perpetuate itself, inflicting violence to the oppressed, in an endless spiral towards the bottom.
So, yeah, it might be true. But I find no concrete examples of what bad stuff A/I themselves did, just their users. Personally, I would like for there to be at least SOME concrete examples. Like, “This convicted terrorist had a blog on their infrastructure, and A/I refused to hand over data they had, even when presented with a valid court order.” Or something like that. Is it too much to ask that the government provide some concrete evidence, not just abstract vage accusations, when doing something as drastic as designating someone a terrorist organization? It would seem so...
This is a knock on the state.gov item, not your comment. Your comment was good.
https://web.archive.org/web/20260826145332/https://www.autis...
"We provide our services strictly for non-commercial use, in order to provide support exclusively to individuals or groups we feel we have an affinity with. In order to verify the existence of these pre-conditions, each and every service request is processed manually by one of our volunteers and is in a dialogical form. All requests are anonymized and will be destroyed."
Anonymized how? Before the first contact? After the conversation?
If anyone here wants to set up a similar service: This is patently stupid for an ISP to attempt.
All that demonstrates is that they operated a public email/messaging server. One could have coordinated the exact same things using ProtonMail or Signal.
Give me a break. Ends to not justify all means. This is a completely appropriate response by the state department.
Sad to see big bro tech and AI skynet is winning the war.
They showed up as actors in my commune where I lived (it was open-to-join, that was the mistake I made among being naive publically thinking truth prevails). I found after that the many past abuses of our government have not stopped and simply adopted to the modern age. Organizations whose interest it is to protect their shadow interests care not about what’s actually good for Americans, their interests are for maintaining status quo.
Status quo supports what - questioning AI and attempting to reverse the power structures or following along obediantly without question? I always wondered if my commentary led me to be put into a database of some kind. After Formerly holding a clearance, and letting it lapse, I’m recently reapplying and let’s see if “calling a government organization a terrorist org” discounts me from that. After reading the article I wouldn’t be surprised if like school yard bullies a leader in the orgs with power respond to viral accusers by marking them in a database as terrorists. Edit; please don’t accuse me of having mental health issues, I’m fine and I am working with my senators office and a “investigatory” agency to look into the abuses. I don’t yet feel hopeful the 3 petter org will reveal anything tho about my case due to security reasons.
Claiming your root is more secure isn't enough, what can people DO with it and WHY should they care? I've ranted enough about this to deaf ears over a half decade to no avail. Even if Dap doesn't end up being the first credible alt-root, I do hope something appears and is not immediately linked to (objectively) illegal/evil activity.
[1]: https://dap.sh
[2]: https://handshake.orgI hope I'll live until their fascist phase ends & historians can properly investigate all the immoral and illegal ways they've been influencing the population. My prediction is that they've scaled Cambridge Analytica to a level that'll make you sick.
> > If you believe in civil liberties as rights and ideals, your belief shouldn't stop at borders.
If you believe in civil liberties as rights and ideals, your belief shouldn't stop at money.
Either the right extends everywhere, including money, or it doesn't.
It's OK to say you wish a politician was dead. It's not OK to pay someone to kill them. It's OK to say that you support some criminal activity (let's say Luigi), but it's not OK to offer direct financial support for their crimes.
Both actions are equivalent, as such words are (social and/or political) capital bounties offered to the masses in return for fulfilling the death of said politician.
Capital always exists, even in the form of words. To deny a variant of capital whilst allowing another variant is inconsistent/doublespeak.
Just because it's not printed onto a piece of denominated paper, doesn't mean that such capital doesn't exist.
Neither the law nor common interpretation of words agrees with this. There is a significant and crucial difference between words and actions.
The difference is artificial, and delusionally blinds itself to the base reality that social/political capital exists.
Again, just because there isn't a cash figure attached to that bounty, doesn't mean that a reward hasn't been attached to it in the form of social/political prestige.
In criticizing their inconsistencies, you are highlighting and simultaneously missing your own inconsistencies.
----
0: For example, if HN bans you, shadowbans you, makes your posts dead by default, flags, or downvotes, that's all free speech.
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 the EU have imposed restrictions on what platforms may host. I think we have not reconciled yet how to reinterpret free speech online.
Im no expert on free speech, of free speech absolutism, so please let inform me :)
Personally, I don't consider paid speech to be free speech, and I don't consider corporations to by humans, but the supreme court does.
Remember, facts aren't real, there is no truth, and crime is legal (in the current "Justice" Dept).
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.
But things like criticising governments, questioning political or economic paradigms, or just making fun of powerful people, should always be legal and protected.
I get the idea behind banning hate speech, but it gets really tricky when you try to think how to define and enforce it. Everyone agrees you need to be able to criticize groups that you don't like, so what makes it cross the line to hate speech (besides calls to violence, which would fall under the 'threats' category anyway)?
The worry is always that if you carve out an exception to free speech to protect vulnerable groups from harassment, how do you stop a future government from expanding those groups to include their political allies?
But what about similar speech against powerful groups, like billionaires? Well, they're not vulnerable or marginalised, they already have a disproportionally large voice, so they're not easily silenced. And of course being a billionaire is a choice; they can abdicate from their wealth in a way people can't do from their gender or ethnic group. So it's not the same. That said, calls for violence against them might still count as hate speech or be considered specific enough to count as threats.
There is obviously some fuzziness, but there also is with other limits to free speech, and there are courts to ultimately adjudicate that.
The difference is that the ownership of HN has their OWN freedom to choose who they let post on here, and what they let be posted.
This is known as the 'Freedom of Association': The right to come together with other people to collectively express, promote, or pursue their common interest. This right also includes the right to accept or decline membership in the group for whatever reason they want. HN can choose to only allow whatever they choose on their site.
In the United States, this right is actually established (according to court rulings) by the same First Amendment that establishes the right to free speech.
The right to free speech does not require a private individual or company give you a platform to make your speech.
Wrong. HN is not "censoring" you at all, which requires engaging in violence (or threat of violence) against you to inhibit you from speaking in public. HN is literally engaging in Free Speech itself. Take arguably the most fundamental free speech activity in a democracy: advocating to your peers for the candidate you wish to vote for and have elected to represent you. You've researched and listened to Alice, Bob and Carol. You decide the best is Alice, and to show your support you do the quintessential thing and put out a Vote For Alice lawn sign on your lawn. That's obviously free speech right? Now what if instead some volunteer from Alice's election team comes by and asks you if they can put up a sign on your property, and you say yes. That too clearly involves your free speech rights, even if you didn't pay for the sign. Now say Bob & Carol's campaigns turn up, and they ask to put up signs on your lawn too. You don't support them and say no. Have you censored them? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Free speech isn't "everything is equal nothing matters", everyone is trying collectively to iterate towards truth and value by making their cases and listening, without general use of force. To say that "I think this idea/person/item is the best choice" by definition is exclusionary, it's also saying "I think all the other ideas/persons/items are NOT the best choice". It can also simply be "I wish to engage with these subjects, not those". You can make a forum dedicated to airplanes & cats, and ban anyone who starts threads on boats & lizards. You may have nothing whatsoever against boats or lizards, but that's not what you personally want to focus on on your own forum you're paying for.
Hacker News is the private property of its owners. They have their own free speech rights. Exercising those rights is not censorship.
Others in turn are free to use their property and/or their voice on public property to make their cases, and they can try to convince you and vice versa. And there can be social consequences, if someone really dislikes your speech maybe they don't invite you to dinner anymore and urge others to do the same, who might agree (or go the other way, or just ignore it). Humans can get passionate sometimes. But by keeping violence out of the whole thing outside of narrow exceptions that undermine the approach itself, room is preserved for minds to be changed and rifts mended years or even decades later, and for ideas to come back around if someone cares enough.
Government enforcing things though always involves violence, either directly or one or more orders removed. But a general monopoly on the legitimate use of force is a defining feature of government. If government doesn't like Alice, and tells you take down the sign, or else, that's fundamental infringement. They're closing down the whole cycle (if a private person did that it'd also be a bunch of other crimes AND infringement, because private persons are not allowed to use violence against others at all by default outside of narrow exceptions). And if government tells you "oh you can leave up the sign about Alice, but it's not fair you censor Bob & Carol, you must put up signs for them too. Or else." that'd be equally infringing censorship. If everyone has a sign, it's the same message as nobody having one. It's still suppressing "I think Alice is the best choice".
>For a large part I see people using digital platforms as a primary method of expressing their thoughts and opinions.
It is easier and cheaper than any point in human history to put up your own website, including your own forum to try to form a community around. You have no right to an audience though.
>Governments in both the US and the EU have imposed restrictions on what platforms may host.
What? What restriction has government in the US imposed beyond the long standing and unchanged exceptions that prove the rule (which essentially boil down to threats of violence, comms integral to crime, defamation AFTER a court case to prove it, serious violations of personal self with zero public value like CSAM, and purely commercial speech engaging in fraud)?
>I think we have not reconciled yet how to reinterpret free speech online.
There is nothing to reinterpret. We've gotten it fine since the passage of Section 230. The problem are constant efforts to suppress what we've already got, in some cases coupled with completely orthogonal issues like failure to enforce ancient anti-trust legislation.
Testosterone down 50% since 1970.
Childishness up slightly more than that.
But you've given me quite an interesting endocrinology research project here. Last I heard, the root cause of the drop remains unknown. (And it's still dropping.)
Isn't that the opposite of this?
The only purpose this rhetoric serves is to justify using the power of government to silence opponents the next time your side happens to be in power.
The libertarian Internet was a mistake and the world will be a better place when it's gone.
2 different rules it seems.
https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...
Apparently they provide the digital infrastructure for violent Antifa cells and because of a 9/11 related executive order, the A/I is able to be branded a sponsor of terrorism.
I guess this makes it a crime to give them money or provide aid to them (if you are a US citizen).
EDIT: who is downvoting and why? The 2nd sentence in the PR says "Autistici/Inventati (A/I Collective) is an Italy-based extremist group that builds and operates the digital infrastructure for violent Antifa cells and other far-left militants across the world" Are you mad that I quote the article or mad that you disagree with Trump? In either case, why are you downvoting me exactly? I am genuinely curious.
In what way is Trump socialist? Even if you think he's trying to reduce the US to one race (presumably one of the European nationalities? Which is insane to think on its own), he's actively opposed to socialism and generally opposed to government control of industries. People using the term fascism have no idea what it actually means.
Why don't you enlighten us then if you have some bEtTeR definition of fascism?
I'm not sure what the 14 points of fascism are but it appears to be a modern work that came out in the 90's. I would encourage you to read books from the time period; the Nazis were very clear the purpose of the national socialist party was to create a socialist economy, and they believed a "shared blood" (as they called it, meaning genetically similar population) was needed for a successful socialist economy (otherwise people would disagree on culture and politics too much to have shared ownership over industry and society). This was the core motivation behind their party and why they made the decisions they did. I'm unaware of serious historians who don't, at least partially, think this way.
Also I'm sorry but this whole thread is a bit off-topic and I'm not going to keep responding. I would encourage you to continue to research the topic though
By what definition?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
"It is characterized by a hatred for liberalism, socialism, democracy, internationalism and the parliamentary system;" / "It opposes communism, socialism, pluralism, individual rights and equality, and democratic government" / "Fascist nationalism is reactionary in that it entails implacable hostility to socialism and feminism" / "Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes... It is a planned system geared to a definite purpose, world-conquest, and not allowing any private interest, either of capitalist or worker, to stand in its way."
Even Mussolini named fascism as something standing against socialism.
So, what definition are you thinking of?
> I'm unaware of serious historians who don't, at least partially, think this way.
So simply cite the serious historians who think that?
- Taking administration propaganda pieces at face value (such as the batshit insane page you linked to)
- Referring to "violent antifa cells". That's the spin Trump has been trying to put on the groups of people who have been resisting fascism. (Do you know what "antifa" stands for?)
Yes I am well aware of what antifa means.
At the very beginning of his first mandate, when he lied about something as trivial as the size of the crowd during his inauguration, and kept to his lies despite absolute evidence to the contrary, never showing any hesitation, second thoughts, or remorse, Trump showed everyone the way ahead.
Do not look at facts. Decide what you want to be true, and act like it is true. Do this every day of every year. In the beginning, people will object; do not get into a debate with them, rather continue making up lies, bigger ones.
I remember seeing videos of a tsunami for the first time. I imagined a huge wave that destroyed everything. It was nothing like that. It started slowly. The water level rose, a few waves went over a wall and onto streets, But the water kept coming, and coming, destroying everything that stood in its path, and in a matter of minutes it was the ocean where before there was a city.
I really worry about the future of free and open expression over the next few years.