john_strinlai

from this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49479169 on, i was talking about the neutral providers and the claim that neutral providers should also be subject to sanctions.

>without any deliberation or really even actual knowledge on the part of the providers.

i think we agree that this is an implicit requirement of being considered a neutral provider.

so, to claim neutral providers should be subject to sanctions implies that a provider who does not know or purposefully facilitate terrorists should still be subject to sanctions (gmail, whatsapp, signal, amazon, etc.)

then we got sidetracked by me being asked how can i possibly know that meta/google/etc. facilitate more terrorists than a/i. which i, and seemingly you, agree is a pretty obvious answer given the scale of the organizations. and i was asked to "walk them through that".

indeed, that would be a very effective way to reduce terrorism to 0.

upthread, nonethewiser said "They aren't some neutral infrastructure provider. __And even if they were that doesn't mean the US shouldn't sanction them for supporting terrorism.__"

emphasis mine. my assertion is that whatsapp, a neutral provider, facilitates more terrorists than a/i. i.e., the US should consider sanctioning them, if we are to follow nonethewiser's recommendation.

(to be clear, i'm on the pro-privacy, pro-encryption side, and don't actually think the US should be sanctioning whatsapp)

okay, great. we can do this together.

lets start with this: how many terrorists do you think a/i has helped?

if the argument is harm reduction and reducing the overall incidence of terrorism, my argument flies.

>So no one knows about these conversations but you know there are orders of magnitude more? Walk me through that.

sure. whatsapp is used by literal billions of people. add in a few more billion people through facebook, instagram, gmail, outlook, amazon.

would you like me to walk through the statistics calculations? or can you extrapolate from the billions of users? now make a guess how many people a/i has facilitated. a few thousand? a hundred thousand?

>Even if that were true how would that change anything? They still comply with the US government and their mission statement isn't to empower, protect, support political extremists.

because it demonstrates that the goal is not to curtail terrorism.

>To be explicitly clear, a "neutral infrastructure provider" does not describe A/I so your scenario is hypothetical.

i am replying specifically to your comments about neutral providers (that's why i quoted the part of your comment that i did)

>No, because they actively respond to removal request.

there is still orders of magnitude more conversations going through the providers i mentioned, related to terrorism/csam/etc., which is simply not reported or not known. right now, meta is facilitating significantly more terrorism than a/i.

in any case, this isn't really about terrorism. they've just overused the child-safety angle lately, and needed to drum up some anti-privacy/anti-encryption using the terrorism card.

>And even if they were that doesn't mean the US shouldn't sanction them for supporting terrorism.

careful, if you start going after neutral infrastructure providers, that means google, amazon, microsoft, meta, and more will also need to go. i guarantee more terrorism-related content is discussed via those providers than a/i.

we should probably also go after internet service providers, too. maybe the companies that make the fiber optics?

(has anyone checked who is providing terrorists with electricity?)

in this case, it mostly means trouble getting money, as they are funded via donations

>That is not a sustainable strategy in the long term

they've been around 25 years, which is nothing to sneeze at

it would be more reasonable, maybe, if the sanctions weren't primarily being used for the anti-encryption, anti-privacy crusade.

the first few sentences of this link, and their about page, and their services page all make it clear what they do. i am unsure of where you confusion comes from.

that would technically fall under the definition of "anyone", yes...

i thought the page says it pretty clearly.

they are a group of people providing services to activists. services include email, web hosting, chat, and other anonymity services. (see https://www.inventati.org/services/)

reading some of the parents other comments, i dont think they were trying to downplay depression in general, and i dont think they meant any offense.

they were, perhaps, slightly careless in their choice of words. that's all.

man, you're all over this submission shitting on antidepressants and questioning people's experiences. it's irresponsible and really not cool.

>but not the case

like all things in life, it's not the only variable. but better recognition is absolutely a factor.

>Genetics does not explain steep raise in last a few decades.

as we built better telescopes, we found more stars

you've replied here several times, i understand your position on C&Ds.

a C&D is reasonably understood as an intent to sue if you continue whatever they want you to cease.

my comment can be read as "i just know that i wouldnt want to have to spend the time or money fighting twitter over it (where "it" = ignoring their C&D and being sued)"

>Again, if you have received an authentic Apple threat notification or similar alert from WhatsApp, Facebook, or Google, [...]

does google (or whatsapp/facebook) actually have similar alerts to apple's threat alerts?

the linked page for google is the typical "sign in from suspicious location" and "unusual number of emails sent", which is significantly different from what apple does when it thinks it detects a nation-state actor using sophisticated and targeted spyware.

physical risks, like your example, do not map well to digital risks faced by large international companies.

>When faced with a wall of text

wall? it is less than 400 words, separated over 5 paragraphs. is that what counts as a "wall" now?

your comment is longer (49 words) than it takes to get to the answer of what clerky does (45 words).

it was only registered today. many places will block new domains, for a customizable definition of 'new'.

>Canada is very unfortunately caught in the trade war between the USA and China.

canada is very unfortunately caught in the trade war between the USA and canada

i know you have strong feelings about this, because you have over 10 comments on this submission, but i'm talking about the general rhetoric of the message (as i quoted), not specific to a/i or any left/right politics.

the general language used in this announcement is undoubtedly anti-encryption and anti-privacy. it just so happens that this time the rhetorical device is terrorism instead of protecting children.

>And I thought enriching uranium is something that counties with nukes go to extreme lengths to make it not accessible.

low-enrichment (~20%) is what's happening here.

the bad stuff, for nukes, is ~90% enrichment.

not sure if that's relevant.

the announcement specifically calls out "encrypted chats and email" and implies that it's a bad thing because it is private

>A/I’s cadre of radical hackers and tech developers provide a full spectrum of services – including encrypted chats and email, web hosting, secure video conferencing and streaming, anonymity shields, and a suite of other technological tools [...] while remaining anonymous, untraceable, and beyond the reach of the law.

ignoring the political leanings, this type of rhetoric will certainly be used to further the campaign against encryption, bolster the case for id verification requirements, etc. it paints the use of everyday normal tools: email, web hosting, etc. as inherently bad if they are private.

>I liked FOSS because it was apolitical.

FOSS itself is a political movement. the whole concept is political.

enterprise is mostly separate, is it not? uptimes are significantly more reasonable on the enterprise status pages