Really sad, and also a testament of the fact that as much as we think we try to be indipendent, eventually once somebody starts putting enough pressure on the people around you (and you turn from "a neutral customer" to "a liability") the path to isolation is very short.
This. When the US government decides to label you “terrorist organization”, it means that you are now targeted by the most potent state actor on earth, which will go as far as blowing up weddings in your neighborhood to stop you.<p>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.
Weddings if you’re lucky. They’ll also murder 150+ girls at school.
Whats the dictionary definition of terror again?<p><i>> violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion</i><p><i>> especially: violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands</i><p><a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror" rel="nofollow">https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror</a><p>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?
It sounds like that until you realize that the baseline behavior is for countries that are not in NATO to be subservient to NATO. So, as you can see, it is the governments and populations that are coercing and intimidating themselves and NATO is helpfully returning them to normalcy.
The situation in Iran has nothing to do with NATO really. It is a US initiative, and NATO was not involved in any way in decision making or policy.
Oh sweet summer child, you would be absolutely correct were it not for your unfortunate confounding of NATO with the USA.
I am biased here, as somebody who grew up next to an American military base in Iceland and had a pro-communist upbringing and learned to hate NATO (as well as the American imperialist agenda as a whole) from an early age.<p>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.
There clearly is. Because NATO isn’t getting involved in America’s idiotic war of aggression and Trump is very upset about this. They’ve spent years being very upset about every other NATO nation’s spending, too.<p>So even if you don’t believe it, the U.S. clearly cares about NATO member behaviour and therefore recognizes a distinction.
> 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.<p>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, <i>a lot</i> of people are going to die. That's how revolution <i>works</i>. Unless we're all LARPing?<p>But Americans/Westerners (left, right, center) are way too comfortable for a revolution, so for people that are, or have been, <i>actual</i> dissidents (think Arab Spring, or IRA, or ETA, or whatever), this is all just a big meme.
Jan 6, didn't work, not entirely sure why you bring this up as a blueprint for anyone. It was an actual LARP and as Bruno Macaes wrote resembled a bunch of people making it to the end of a videogame, then running around confused in costumes and going for a drink.<p>What did work for them was pouring money into the election system and party apparatus, media, the courts and then taking control over politics
What worked was getting people stirred up to the point that some would turn to violence. Even now a majority of their party believe they were justified.<p>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.
> Jan 6, didn't work, not entirely sure why you bring this up as a blueprint for anyone.<p>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.
"I broke everything like a child and now everything is worse" is not a revolution. It's being a useful idiot
If everyone is so comfortable, what do we need a revolution for? Wasn't that the goal of civilization? If someone doesn't like civilization, why try to bring it down? There's plenty of places on earth you can go to live without it.
> you need to actually get out of the basement, grab a gun, and storm the Capitol.<p>This is not what happened on J6, and is specifically why it was not an insurrection.
As a person living in the place you're mentioning, I have to confidently state that you've been brainwashed
> you are now targeted by the most potent state actor on earth<p>Well, it is a mafia. See the international court investigating war crimes is
also targeted by the orange clown-brigade mafia.<p>> the only option is to cave<p>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.
[flagged]
Could someone point me to some background on this whole incident or write a quick one? I don't know who they are or what's going on but it seems important.
The US Republican party has been inventing an increasingly elaborate alternate reality fiction in order to convince their voters to keep voting for policy positions that obviously work against those voters' own interests. One component of this alternate reality is a fictional terrorist organization called "antifa." They claim that anyone who does not align with their policies is a member of this organization. This allows them to use the anti-terrorism laws passed in the wake of 9/11 and similar incidents against their political opponents. The US government claims someone who used the A/I service was a member of this fictional organization, and used those anti-terrorism laws to declare that A/I is supporting terrorism and so threatened sanctions against the banks A/I was using. No access to banking means A/I is shutting down.
[flagged]
Let me fix that for you.<p>Lots of maga are idealists (even if their ideas are not based in the real world), a number of them are LARPers and a small number are hard core intent on eliminating “the enemy”. To think that no maga member is violent and entertains violent options, is denying reality. Also it’s disingenuous to think they are all out of their minds looking to overthrow the government. Many just have ideals that don’t align with the mainstream.<p><a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115398251623299921" rel="nofollow">https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1153982516232...</a><p><a href="https://www.gettyimages.com/videos/jan-6" rel="nofollow">https://www.gettyimages.com/videos/jan-6</a>
That doesn’t work. maga aren’t idealists, they are deeply cynical, atavistic reactionaries.
Its not controversial to say that right wing extremists exist, some of which even commit violence, so your analogy isn't the brilliant whataboutism gotcha that you intended it to be.<p>So yes, just like some very far right people exist, that can justifiably be called terrorists, so to do some very far left individuals.
[flagged]
... But also, there's no organization called antifa, and no antifa members. It's an accusation levied against people the right wing wants to call terrorists.
> But also, there's no organization called antifa, and no antifa members<p>Left wing extremist groups absolutely exist. The fact that they don't go around wearing matching uniforms with the letters ANTIFA on them doesn't change that.<p>Your demand for an exact membership list is simply not how extremist organizations work. Terroristic groups have always been fairly amorphous.
[flagged]
> Why do so called anti fascists act fascistically<p>Because anyone call themselves anti-fascist, doesn't make them so. While most people who are, well, not fascists probably don't wear or care about the label. You basically confirmed the point of the comment you replied to.<p>> I’m sure there are supremacists “organizations” that are also hard to pin down.<p>You mean the ones that aren't organizations? Let's say all the people who are racist in the world, are they an organization? Even all the people who really hate the same "race", if that's all they do, does that make them an org? Is everyone making inane arguments be part of a global group of people working in concert trying to diminish the cognitive capacity and level of discourse in society?
> If so, why carry those flags and bandanas on their faces?<p>The flag just symbols that this person is against Nazis. Nothing more, nothing less.<p>It can be held by <i>anyone</i>. Here in Germany, we have (amongst others, just a list of what I have seen) religious Christians (often of Lutheran Protestantism), Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, other denominations of Communists, Anarchists, Greens, Social Democrats, Antiimperialists, Zionists and sometimes even the occasional Conservatives showing up under the Antifa banner.
Because opposing fascism gets fascists to target you and people are concerned for their safety.
People sharing similar values does not make them an organization. “Why do they wear masks?” because they don’t want nazis to interfere with their jobs, friends and families? You’re asking questions there are very obvious answers to. Seems like a disingenuous comment or you’re unable to do the most basic research
[dead]
[flagged]
that's what a call a straw-man. NSPM-7 exists and is providing funding and direction for LEOs to target ideologically leftist organizations as tame as BLM or 50501 [0]<p>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<p>[0] <a href="https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/how-nspm-7-seeks-to-use-domestic-terrorism-to-target-nonprofits-and-activists" rel="nofollow">https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/how-nspm-7-seeks...</a>
You're just not confronting reality, man. The President of the United States personally called for Gavin Newsom to be arrested in June 2025. In September of that year, in response to Newsom's post calling Gestapo chief Stephen Miller a fascist, Miller went on TV to complain that nobody is allowed to call him a fascist and Newsom was encouraging violence by doing so.
[flagged]
Yet
also for context this is a shorter version and represents well the situation
<a href="https://www.inventati.org/who/collective" rel="nofollow">https://www.inventati.org/who/collective</a><p>"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."<p>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.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistici/Inventati#United_States_government_sanctions_(2026)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistici/Inventati#United_Sta...</a>
Here’s a wiki article that I found helpful:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistici/Inventati" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistici/Inventati</a><p>“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…”
there is a good interview with someone from the collective here: <a href="https://sabot.media/post/a-network-called-resistance" rel="nofollow">https://sabot.media/post/a-network-called-resistance</a>
The US government is labeling anyone who says they're "anti fascist" as terrorists, and shut down a major Italian private email provider using that rationale.
Basically fascists against commies all over again. Important? Yes. Because they've proven again that they're actual fascists.
And yes, they could relocate to TOR, I2P, use P2P websites, torrents, and only accept cryptos for donations. But eventually you'll need to put down a credit card on file to buy a domain, and that domain needs to be owned by somebody.
>But eventually you'll need to put down a credit card on file to buy a domain, and that domain needs to be owned by somebody.<p>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.
njal.la (no affiliate) exists for that purpose. It is a privacy focused domain service that is run by the people behind the pirate bay.<p>[1] <a href="https://njal.la/domains/" rel="nofollow">https://njal.la/domains/</a>
You’re still subject to ICANN, an American org. There is no escaping the US government if you’re using the public web for your infra
Njalla is not ICANN accredited, so they cannot register domains. They buy them and then lease them out to you.<p>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.
I hereby designate the US government an international terrorist organization.
Yeah, but do you control international banking the way they do? That's ultimately how they're able to do this.
> Yeah, but do you control international banking the way they do?<p>This is why Europe needs to detach itself from the American banking system.<p>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.<p>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)
At the moment Europe is getting more reliant on the US. There are new non-Us payment systems but the end user devices are Apple or Google controlled. Governments and banks are very eager to get rid of cash, to introduce digital ID etc. That all relies on American platforms.
> That all relies on American platforms.<p>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.
We used to. Contactless payments from my phone didn't require Google Wallet a few years ago, but now they do. My bank passes suddenly say VISA and have credit card numbers on them which they didn't have a few years ago. European banks are going in the completely wrong direction and need to reverse.
> This is why Europe needs to detach itself from the American banking system.<p>So far, what it's detached itself from its sources of fossil fuels. With a little help from its great American friends.
What I find wild is that this control over international banking, and the sanctions it enables, is a key benefit of the US-led world order that Trump is trying to dismantle. I’m quite sure he doesn’t understand this, but a key consequence of his efforts to stop the US from getting “ripped off” is that we will soon no longer have the ability to impose these sorts of sanctions as the global economy re-routes around American control.
Which is why efforts by China to stand up independent cross border payment rails are important. You have to cut the US out of any ability to control activities outside of their boundaries.<p><i>China, Egypt to do away with the use of the US dollar</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49555056">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49555056</a> - September 2026<p><i>China nears launch of mBridge as alternative to Swift</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48636931">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48636931</a> - June 2026
and Europe. Europe should also decouple itself from the U.S. as much as it is possible, and not repeat the mistake of overreliance with China. not because China is somehow worse, but because you always should be able to say "no", no matter how good your partners are
Europe is decoupling itself all ready also. Using SEPA-Inst and wero.
The US pressured Europe last time, in 2019, into aligning with their sanctions. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_in_Support_of_Trade_Exchanges" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_in_Support_of_Trade...</a>
The Iran situation could have gone better if trade and JCPOA nuclear oversight had continued.
Unfortunately decoupling payments within the EU is insufficient if the US can just threaten to sanction your bank, and in doing so force the bank to drop you as a customer. Even in the presence of an internal European payments network, those banks still need to transact with the US and other US-sphere countries...
No but then you can have local bank that will not have US interactions but can still serve you. Since the French judge of the IPC was sanctioned, it’s clear that the EU must completely decouple from the US.
For now, but not forever. Skate to where the puck is going to be. Decoupling continues, with the target being independence. Quote this comment five years from now.
They are.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49225112">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49225112</a>
[dead]
So the rest of the world has the option of relying on China instead? How is that better?
TBH China is not currently bombing a foreign country for no reason and it is not threatening to invade its allies.<p>It’s not a particularly high bar, but of the big powers, only China currently meets it.<p>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.
A small third party at the junction of two giants is infinitely more powerful than a small third party obliged to be the client of one.
It can be better, if the alternative mechanism is designed with safeguards against hijacking by a single state. Naturally, the threat of sanctions can always bully banks or states into acting one way or another, but at least it would not be through the cutting off of money transfers between willing parties.<p>Of course, that's an _if_, not something to just take for granted.
Just because millions of us haven't marched on the banks globally in a coordinated effort to control the banking system doesn't mean we can't.<p>Just have not yet done it.
They already know what they are. There are good reasons the term "terrorist" has yet to be formally agreed upon among members of the United Nations.
But meaning what
[flagged]
How many of these millions only had to migrate to the US because the US destroyed their countries with war, economic sanctions, covert CIA operations, or other attacks?
I don’t know, how many? You are the one throwing blanket statements.<p>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.<p>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.
A/I shuts down
As Stephen Miller loves to remind us, we had the first net emigration in decades this year. They're rounding up legal immigrants and putting them in concentration camps where they're dying because they're being denied medical care.
If you don't see an issue with the White House constantly posting straight up Nazi memes then that's on you. There's also plenty immigrants in Europe who vote for fascists, so? Turns out you can't just leave your "former" country behind like an old coat, it's still your upbringing and horizon. You are grateful "to the country", but what does that mean while also shrugging off what the <i>people</i> in "the country" are saying? What is left of "the country"? A bunch of papers, rights and money, opportunities for you; let the goons roam and fill their warehouses, keep children, even infants in despicable conditions, because you (think you) have nothing to fear?
Some of y'all are from countries that are in great turmoil.<p>Which is partly or mostly our fault.<p>Maybe we could concentrate on doing less of that.
[flagged]
Hmm, I would have expected more outrage from the US "free speech absolutists" over this US government decision ;)
This is such a small blip in all the crap this administration is perpetrating that most are probably not aware of it or are drowned out in the rage over inflation, tariffs, wars, immigrants, etc.
I'm a free speech absolutist (albeit one of apparently few people who actually knows what "free speech" is [0]) and I'm absolutely outraged and infuriated by this action and a long history of anti-speech actions by the USG, though this particular Administration is unprecedented in terms of censorship, general evil and authoritarianism in modern history. I also think it's unfortunate how many people in favor of all sorts of censorship now attack stawmen and treat something so vitally important as a joke like you have. The unseriousness you treat something incredibly serious with has become an endemic problem in our society, and directly inspires nihilism/fatalism/tribalism etc, feelings which in turn directly support authoritarianism.<p>----<p>0: For example, if HN bans you, shadowbans you, makes your posts dead by default, flags, or downvotes, that's all free speech.
I am not sure I see a fundamental distinction between HN censoring your speech on their platform or the government preventing you from speaking in public. Both are censoring you right? Is the difference the fact that HN is free to regulate its own platform as it wants to?<p>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.<p>Im no expert on free speech, of free speech absolutism, so please let inform me :)
HN can't put you in jail.<p>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.
If I have a public platform and refuse to sponsor/publish/platform your speech, that is my free speech right! You don't have the right to force me to speak your words. Only the government is prohibited (by 1st amendment) from censoring/limiting speech (that does not cause or promote violence or injury to others). There are also some restrictions and protections also offered to the press (eg libel and defamation) and common carriers, along with the abomination of the DMCA.<p>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.<p>Remember, facts aren't real, there is no truth, and crime is legal (in the current "Justice" Dept).
> The unseriousness you treat something incredibly serious with has become an endemic problem in our society<p>Testosterone down 50% since 1970.<p>Childishness up slightly more than that.
I hate to see this strawman every single time there is an attack on free speech. You are actually mocking the fight for free speech. You aren't attacking the hypocrites that only use it when convenient.<p>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.
Did you really though? I never understood the "free speech absolutists" to care about speech they disagreed with. They made it clear that they only accept "patriotic" speech a long time ago.
Did you catch the part where A/I Collective is operated by foreign parties outside the US?
Funny, the same US "free speech absolutists" get upset about "censorship" outside the US (mostly in EU countries) all the time, so it would be completely on point.
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. You seem to be saying the "free speech absolutists" getting upset about censorship in the EU is a bad thing. While, at the same time, saying them <i>not</i> getting upset about this is a bad thing.<p>In criticizing their inconsistencies, you are highlighting and simultaneously missing your own inconsistencies.
If you believe in civil liberties as rights and ideals, your belief shouldn't stop at borders.
Good point, we should also allow foreign organizations to contribute to US election campaigns and make Facebook ads because they might also believe in civil liberties as rights and ideals, uh... right?
Don't put words in my mouth. I never claimed to believe what you're asserting.<p>As an American citizen, my right to free speech originates in the Bill of Rights as defended by my nation's armed forces. As a foreign company, A/I has no ability to claim the same rights.<p>Your talk about "rights and ideals" is just your own fantasy, ungrounded in reality.
The Declaration of Independence, constitution and bill of rights aim to recognize and protect rights everyone is born with.
Do you think your country is the only one that thought of free speech? Your particular implementation is irrelevant, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by giving us a lecture on how some foreign country justifies their self-perception.<p>That being said, it is somewhat humorous how you're confirming the stereotypes that apparently even that needs guns and violence over there somehow?
This story is about a US government designation. The clowns on HN are claiming that this is censorship and "what about my free speech". Yes, it's censorship. No, A/I Collective has no right to "free speech" from the US government. Italian free speech laws are irrelevant.<p>Please, pass this to an AI for a further explanation because I don't understand why you're so strongly resistant to understanding this very simple observation.
> Hmm, I would have expected more outrage from the US "free speech absolutists" over this US government decision<p>The crowd that claims to be in favor of free speech should be in favor of free speech for everyone, not just US citizens. This thread isn't about the government - it's about how HN's very vocal "free speech" crowd are actually libertarians who want to say awful things and not get called out rather than people who stand up for the concept of free speech in general.
So free speech absolutists don't care about free speech, just free speech for americans on american soil? Not very absolutist then...
"Free speech absolutists" demonstrably don't even care about free speech for Americans on American soil. "Free speech absolutism" is, in 99.9999% of cases, a euphemism for 1) holding abhorrent views and 2) being a gigantic fucking crybaby when someone criticizes you for them.
The US free speech advocates had plenty to day about Julian Assange, an Australian stuck in the Ecuadorean embassy all the way across the Atlantic.
> History shows that people always choose convenience over autonomy.<p>The mere fact that revolution exists disproves this statement.
> 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<p>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.
I wasn't aware of this group; <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistici/Inventati" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistici/Inventati</a> is their wiki article, but it is a little light on details.<p>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.
I'm wondering how long until they target CCC :/
This reminds me how fragile the internet is and how we need other channels of communication.
Not all problems are best served with technical solutions. This is a political problem.
Maybe LoRa? Doesn't get more sovereign than that. As long you have people to connect with, that is.
Here is the State Department's rationale: <a href="https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/08/designation-of-autistici-inventati-as-a-specially-designated-global-terrorist" rel="nofollow">https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...</a>
Never heard of A/I and I have no idea what they are about, but rather than a government communication this statement reads like an angry rant with lots of unhelpful name-calling.<p>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.
Really?<p>> 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.<p>> 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.<p>> 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.<p>Seems quite specific to me.
This is the new Republican mainstream, the same mainstream that brings us AI generated videos of the Obamas as apes. They have no shame and are likely irredeemable (certainly their behavior is inexcusable).<p>And ultimately these statements aren't for the normal citizens. They're for the truly strange, the racists, and the trolls.
Remember this is the Trump administration. I think your expectations might be a bit high.
Wait this is not true. I’m truly neutral here.<p>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.
I’m not familiar with A/I, but this sounds pretty damning – the ideological vetting of users in particular seems to discount any sort of neutral utility defense.
The use of the word “ideological” in text with a US Gov-anything byline is tantamount to a fart. Its whining “I dont like this thing but I cant cry like a child about it.”
Sure, sounding damning is kind of the point of this kind of statement. But its also cheap and easy since there is no requirement that any of the claims are justified by any facts.
Hacker news engages in ideological vetting against users. For example, try posting content encouraging violence.
HN only (lazily) filters content. It doesn't engage in ideological vetting, and doesn't need to either.<p>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.<p>We are having a discussion right now that would not be allowed if there was vetting.
It really doesn’t, unless they are screening for terrorism. For instance, a company that provides some free tech for low income Catholics, which ends up used in some crime, maybe bombed family planning clinic, can be charged for the terrorism they didn’t do. In fact, this can be leveraged by anti-Catholic terrorists to take out the Catholic tech service.
Ideologically vetting can mean a lot of things. Like, a sign on the door that says "NO TERFS" is a form of ideological vetting.<p>By this logic any right wing message board would be designated terrorists the moment one person who has posted there commits a violent act.<p>This is meant to chill domestic left-wing activism. Just like the person who got 30 years for delivering some zines (<a href="https://freedom.press/issues/texas-man-sentenced-to-30-years-for-transporting-pamphlets/" rel="nofollow">https://freedom.press/issues/texas-man-sentenced-to-30-years...</a> <a href="https://portside.org/2026-06-25/injustice-how-leftist-zines-were-used-sentence-anti-ice-protesters-decades-prison" rel="nofollow">https://portside.org/2026-06-25/injustice-how-leftist-zines-...</a>)
From my reading of their policy they do not claim to be neutral:<p>> 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<p>It is the first line of <a href="https://www.inventati.org/who/policy" rel="nofollow">https://www.inventati.org/who/policy</a>
What if "ideological vetting of users" means "discarding those who you believe would use the services for purposes you loathe".
I'm not familiar with A/I, but I'm familiar with americans, and they look completely ridiculous talking smack about others doing allegedly "bad things". And they have no defense about supporting war criminals or genocidaires.
[dead]
Unfortunately I can no longer take any official communication from my government at face value. They have lost my trust that they are operating as directed by the letter of the law without fear nor favor.
"violent" is used many times in this announcement, but it would seem that one of the most violent entity in the world right now are the US? Also, it's so weird that "antifa" (antifascists) has become a bad thing. If antifa is bad then it must mean "fa" is good? So we should bring back the Nazis?<p>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.
> one of the most violent entity in the world right now are the US?<p>always has been<p>e.g., <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG0Ql0VfcRg" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG0Ql0VfcRg</a>
I too find it really weird. My grandpa was a member of a violent antifascist organization (US Army, 1940s). The US government even awarded him multiple medals for his antifa activities.
Like trying to scrutinize the motives of a complete lunatic.
Here’s the thing though: if even some of the examples given in the state department page are true (some of them are rather silly), that A/I knowingly provided services to groups that verifiably did some rather violent things they are accused of, I’m not sure how they expected to hide behind their mission.<p>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.”<p>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.”<p>Is it right for the US to be the global arbiter of this issue and domains in general? Of course not.
> “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.”<p>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.<p>Do you want to declare them terrorists too?
> A/I knowingly provided services to groups that verifiably did some rather violent things they are accused of<p>If that's disqualifying, a lot of US government contractors are in trouble.
Or J6.
[flagged]
> There are very logical reasons why the state wielding force and violence is preferable to the alternatives…<p>Seems like there are some pretty clear historical exceptions to this rule.
well depends on if you are in the group the state is wielding that power for or not..
in interviews, they said if you give them examples of "xyz" is prohibited by applicable law, they would remove it. They would not help you spy on them probably, by backdooring their infra or sth.
> A/I’s cadre of radical hackers and tech developers provide a full spectrum of services<p>Pun intended?
> ERR_UNEXPECTED_PROXY_AUTH
Most of this has me rolling my eyes (“cadre of radical hackers”? really?), but this part is interesting:<p>> The A/I Collective… manually vets all potential users for ideological affinity before granting them access to its infrastructure.<p>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?<p>Asking out of genuine curiosity. I wasn’t familiar with this group before today.
Basically, far right extremists targeting antifascists through mechanisms of political repression while having the gall to call themselves pro free speech.
Good to know that comments pointing out that the Bill of Rights does not extend "free speech" protections to parties operating in foreign countries will be flagged by the HN Illuminati.
Again, whatever laws you have in the US is irrelevant in Italy, where they have their own free speech and the US is the <i>foreign country</i>.<p>Free speech has been around as a concept for two millenia, starting with Athenian democracy. Your relatively recent constitution didn't invent it and harping on your particular implementation is off-topic.
Did you miss where this story is about the US government making a determination about a foreign party? It's very much not off-topic.<p>The US has different rules for (a) its citizens and (b) foreigners. If the US decides an Italian company is carrying water for terrorists and takes steps to stop it, that has nothing to do with my right to free speech. Isn't this obvious?<p>I'm glad they forced it off the internet and I support the action.<p>I think the real question is why Italy cannot protect its companies.
Why is this downvoted? The regime has openly declared that anti-fascist beliefs are now cause for surveillance, censorship, and persecution.<p><a href="https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/trumps-nspm-7-labels-common-beliefs" rel="nofollow">https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/trumps-nspm-7-labels-commo...</a>
[flagged]
So the oppression does work. It won't stop.
I have no way to verify whether the collective really helped the violent acts that are cited in the designation[1] but, as an Italian, given the dialectic and rhetoric in their statements and in their websites, it would not surprise me if this once they - the US government - were not wrong. "A broken clock marks the right time twice a day" and all that.<p>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).<p>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.<p>[1]<a href="https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/08/designation-of-autistici-inventati-as-a-specially-designated-global-terrorist" rel="nofollow">https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...</a><p>edit: forgot the link to the designation
So I guess they just relaunch under a different name ?
It's interesting how a terrorist organization is now labeling others terrorists. This is how far we've come.
This is unfortunately nothing new. The hegemonic power defines resistance to it as criminal, terrorist, immoral, heathen, satanic, reactionary etc.
I hereby designate the US dollar the currency of an international terrorist organization
What did they do??
Sounds like providing encrypted communications?<p>I think we can all see the potential problems with this, even if a specific group is awful.<p>“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.”
Can just rename themselves into I/A. “A/I? That’s shut down. We are not affiliated with them…”
>Sorry, but we don’t accept Bitcoin.<p><a href="https://www.inventati.org/donate" rel="nofollow">https://www.inventati.org/donate</a><p>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??<p>It's like choosing not to use E2EE.<p>It's not even left political groups that get debanked or screwed—it's everyone often.<p>Even GrapheneOS, but intelligently, they use crypto heavily:<p>>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.<p><a href="https://xprivate.lol/GrapheneOS/status/1684663777273233408" rel="nofollow">https://xprivate.lol/GrapheneOS/status/1684663777273233408</a><p><a href="https://xprivate.lol/GrapheneOS/search?f=tweets&q=Pay+monero&since=&until=&min_faves=" rel="nofollow">https://xprivate.lol/GrapheneOS/search?f=tweets&q=Pay+monero...</a>
I think everybody should read the two Economic Hitmen books by John Perkins.
A DNS alt-root and something like x402 would fix this
I still think a decentralized DNS alternative could scale, if done the right way. I also think that the majority of sites would be more secure if they used a system like ssh to deal with certificates, and government-controlled trust chains should be left for banking and other "official" stuff.
I'm working on something like this with Dap[1] (full disclosure, I used to be heavy into the Handshake[2] ecosystem). Where previous alt-roots failed is having nothing to build on it. Lots of marketing about how "things will be different" this time while providing nothing in the way of getting developers building experiences atop this new naming system.<p>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.<p><pre><code> [1]: https://dap.sh
[2]: https://handshake.org</code></pre>
What does it means?
I also oppose fascism, militarism, racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia, like what A/I do... And none of that is illegal... At least not in any civilised society. So what did they do to trigger so many? I remember the Norwegian stuff (since I’m Norwegian), and I remember thinking it sounded like bullshit to copy their entire server drive when they wanted access to the blog of two people.<p>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).<p>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"<p>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.”<p>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.<p>I have no clue what I’m talking about here, though. Strange situation and too little information...
<a href="https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/08/designation-of-autistici-inventati-as-a-specially-designated-global-terrorist" rel="nofollow">https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...</a> This designation offers some specific examples of violence being coordinated using their systems. Some are indeed extreme, if true. That doesn’t invalidate their mission or overall contribution to the world at large; it just was sufficient ammo for extinguishing another threat to power.
This does not show what they (A/I) did. The only concrete examples are of bad behavior by some users. Then there’s a bunch of generic claims against A/I, with NO specifics.<p>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...<p>This is a knock on the state.gov item, not your comment. Your comment was good.
The problem is that, as A/I themselves explained (<a href="https://www.inventati.org/who/collective" rel="nofollow">https://www.inventati.org/who/collective</a>), they worked hard to ensure that they do not possess any evidence of or data about who is using their infrastructure.
autistici.org said the opposite:<p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20260826145332/https://www.autistici.org/" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20260826145332/https://www.autis...</a><p>"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."<p>Anonymized how? Before the first contact? After the conversation?<p>If anyone here wants to set up a similar service: This is patently stupid for an ISP to attempt.
> <a href="https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20" rel="nofollow">https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20</a>... This designation offers some specific examples of violence being coordinated using their systems<p>All that demonstrates is that they operated a public email/messaging server. One could have coordinated the exact same things using ProtonMail or Signal.
I note that that extensive list only contains a single death, due to a power failure. Extreme civil disobedience, but not really terrorism.
> “That doesn’t invalidate their mission or overall contribution to the world at large;”<p>Give me a break. Ends to not justify all means. This is a completely appropriate response by the state department.
> I also oppose fascism, militarism, racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia, like what A/I do... And none of that is illegal... At least not in any civilised society. So what did they do to trigger so many?<p>Do you oppose using standardized tests to determine which applicants should get admitted to selective public universities? This is a specific thing that was halted in California because activists argued it was illegally racist (<a href="https://publiccounsel.org/our-cases/smith-v-regents-of-university-of-california/" rel="nofollow">https://publiccounsel.org/our-cases/smith-v-regents-of-unive...</a>). You'll probably find that lots of ways you relate to people around you as gendered beings, men and women, count as either sexism, transphobia, or both, at least according to some activists' definitions. I do not assume that when a political activist group claims to oppose racism, sexism, or other ostensible hostility to a demographic group, that they aren't trying to define this in a way that would result in an immense restriction on your rights, freedoms, or quality of life if enacted.
> And none of that is illegal... At least not in any civilised society<p>I mean, the capitalist system is a barbaric system with defenders that do make opposition illegal...
[flagged]
> We are stopping, but the Resistance and ideas do not stop. Stay human.<p>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?
Resistance and revolution happened before the internet. People have become lazy and complacent, and want their resistance served up over the wire. Thats not how real resistance happens, but it does make people feel like they are doing something, sucking up their energy while the biggest impact is TikTok memes, the modern version of the sternly worded letter.<p>This is exactly where the power structures want the struggle to be , online, with no real consequences that matter.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>When they do use the internet to coordinate, it’s not in public forums, it’s encrypted communications, targeted and limited in scope.<p>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.<p>The internet was once subversive in and of itself. It no longer is. Now you’re just wearing signs at the mall.<p>The revolution thrives underground, not out in the open.
I take it as, talk to people in real life and don’t rely on systems that can be shut down.
It should be noted that this is a very sensible thing to say even if you are not stopping; the only case where you cannot say this is if you are carrying on with the same branding, which is typically necessary if you are carrying forwards funds (which have been seized) or brand recognition (which may not be important for a group who focuses on interpersonal relationships).
>Why is the Italian government not protecting them?<p>The Italian police wiretapped them for one year without them knowing.
The Italian government is also a far-right government like the US, so is aligned in wanting to suppress left-wing views.
You go offline. Paper flyers and meetings are much more effective anyway.<p>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:<p><a href="https://x.com/intifada" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/intifada</a>
The "terrorist" definition is just anybody that doesn’t agree with this administration at this point.<p>They will fabricate anything to justify their thinly veiled intentions.
Another reason why EU should be independant of US. Cloudflare never had this kinda of bs...<p>2 different rules it seems.
Love these people and what a powerful message<p>If anyone from A/I is reading this know you always have a place to stay/eat if you need it
> In a world where allegations are disconnected from reality, we can only expect repression to be increasingly disproportionate.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.
> Every day we stayed online after August 26, 2026, has been a victory, but now we are forced to stop.<p>Sad to see big bro tech and AI skynet is winning the war.
Hopefully riseup can pick up some of the slack here, but more decentralized services are needed.
Yet another example of the troubling amount of power the United States holds over the internet and global finance.<p>I really worry about the future of free and open expression over the next few years.
I fucking hate the US so much
So, in 2021-2022 I publically called the See I Ayyy terrorists and advocated against accounts that algorithmically looked to astroturf or divide people on Instagram.<p>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.<p>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.
It's in my opinion insane that the US can get away with this without serious backlash from other countries, and it confirms the disappointing reality that the US has become the biggest force for fascism and the biggest motor for the suppression of freedom of speech in the world.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
I think people are downvoting you for several reasons:<p>- Taking administration propaganda pieces at face value (such as the batshit insane page you linked to)<p>- 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?)
Thanks for explaining, I will work on my approach, I didn't think I said anything that presented I agree with or believed the PR, only that it was context for why the A/I situation.<p>Yes I am well aware of what antifa means.
One can be anti-fascist and violent. <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/better-way/" rel="nofollow">https://www.splcenter.org/resources/reports/better-way/</a>
More boogie man bullshit from our fascist admin.
[flagged]
From the state department link above:<p>> Oregon-based Rose City Antifa has relied on A/I Collective tools and services to organize and incite violent and criminal acts domestically, including an attack on Customs and Border Patrol helicopters that led to a federal indictment. Rose City Antifa also used A/I Collective tools and services to disseminate doxing lists and release illegally obtained personal information of Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement, along with calls for targeted attacks on ICE agents in the streets and “in their homes.”
So violent cells that refer to themselves as "anti-fascist" don't exist?
[flagged]
[flagged]
I’d like to see you resist a government ordered shutdown of your accounts for more than a few hours
I’d like to have more information about what “offered” means here. I’m sure that regular email and hosting providers have been used by terrorists without being designated a terrorist organization themselves.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane%27s_Revenge" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane%27s_Revenge</a><p>I'm sure they're aware who they are hosting, at least blog wise. We're not talking about a massive company with no ideological affiliation, they vet who they provide access to before they do so, so in many ways it is more of a partnership than simply providing services. Not that necessarily I think it was worth labelling the organization themselves terrorists, but it still isn't something that should be whitewashed.
> Eleven days?<p>How long do you think <i>you</i> could resist a tier-1 nation state coming after you on terrorism charges?
I can't imagine continuing to run something designated by the US as a terrorist organization for for even ONE day
Actual terrorists have a right to speak too, you know. Intrinsic to the whole idea of <i>rights</i> is that even people we don't like (or are even mortally opposed to!) still have them. The problem with "firebombs on anti-abortion pregnancy crisis centers" is obviously <i>the firebombs</i>.
[flagged]
Parler was "ripped off the Internet" because it was delisted from app stores and dropped by AWS for violating their ToS due to having (If I remember correctly) approximately zero content moderation, which is not really compatible with the mainstream distribution model they wanted. The owners were not subjected to sanctions by a foreign government.
"They promoted and hosted violent/terrorist activity."<p>What kind exactly?
Unless the US government ripped parler off the Internet, this is not a sensible comparison.
[flagged]
If I was someone who funded/relied on A/I's services I would have been trying to figure out what would it had taken for the US State Department to produce evidence for their allegations and would have lobbied for some sort of determination of whether the scope of A/I's involvement with said parties and their actions violated their own policies/terms of service.<p>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.<p>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.