10 ms·

Seems like there are hundreds of people in those groups. Can't be hard to get into for some skilled undercover cops. TV shows have shown me they do these thing

Seems like there are hundreds of people in those groups. Can't be hard to get into for some skilled undercover cops. TV shows have shown me they do these things all the time!

themafia 9mo ago
It would help if they stopped holding demonstrations in front of facilities with huge amounts of facial recognition technology. Protesting is not something you should do "casually."
- eleventyseven 9mo ago
  Protesting is a fundamental human right and obligation. It is something that you should do as casually as you would voting, volunteering, and taking out the garbage: something you do from time to time when the moment demands it. See also: https://enwp.org/Chilling_effect https://enwp.org/Chilling_effect
  - themafia 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - dns_snek 9mo ago
      > No. It's not. Governments are not natural. So you have no "fundamental" rights here. You could make the same moot point about all societal laws. Fundamental rights are determined by the constitution, the UN declaration of human rights, as well as any other local charters.
      - Claudus 9mo ago
        [flagged]
        direwolf20 9mo ago
        If you believe rights are what God and the Constitution grant, then they're meaningless. Some piece of paper has no real–world relevance. Cops shooting people in the face has real–world relevance.
        Claudus 9mo ago
        [flagged]
        jonathanlydall 9mo ago
        Barring physical limitations, what you can and can't do is ultimately determined by what the society you are by and large a part of deems to be acceptable behaviour. Government rules and social norms can change over time, it ultimately doesn't matter what you feel is "right" or what some law says is "right", it's really about what you can get away with. A large part of what you can get away with is determined about whether or not you will ultimately be penalized for your actions (possibly through violence), and laws can keep people aligned on what is or isn't going to be accepted and when people deemed to be acting in a socially unacceptable way are likely to be penalized in some form. While "rights" may be somewhat philosophical, they can have very real physical "weight" behind them in the form of other people "enforcing" them. And finally, in case you are mistakenly under the impression that I think it's okay for anyone to do anything they want so long as they can get away with it, I don't, but that discussion drifts into the territory of morality and ethics which, while related, are nevertheless different and very large topics of discussion in themselves.
        idiotsecant 9mo ago
        God doesn't have a typewriter, as far as I know. When he gets one I hope he clears up which 99.9% of human religions are heretical and which 0.01% are divine law, that would be really helpful. In the meantime, rights are not granted by anyone. They are a contract between the governed and those that govern. Breaking that contract is the sort of thing that doesn't end up working out well for the governing class.
        9mo ago
    - mikkupikku 9mo ago
      Governments are natural; nature abhors a vacuum. Governments which at least pay lip service to the premise of respecting people's rights are another matter entirely.
  - oceanplexian 9mo ago
    > Protesting is a fundamental human right That doesn't include vandalism, it doesn't include blocking roads, looting, or assaulting people. What's obvious to me is that a certain class of protestors are intentionally provoking a response from the government by breaking the law. Inevitably someone is arrested, hurt, or killed, and that is used as an excuse for more protests. The protests get increasingly violent in an escalating cycle. That process isn't exercising a "fundamental human right", it's a form of violence. If you don't agree with the Government the correct answer is to vote, have a dialog, and if you choose to protest do it in a way that's respectful to your neighbors and the people around you.
    - defrost 9mo ago
      > a certain class of protestors Yes, a proportionally large and significant number of local Minnesota community members of long and good standing. > are intentionally provoking a response from the government are reacting to excessive over reach by outsiders, directed by the Federal government to act in a punative manner. > Inevitably someone is arrested, hurt, or killed, This has already happened. Multiple times. As was obvious from the outset given the unprofessional behaviour and attitudes of the not-police sent in wearing masks. > [the people aren't] exercising a "fundamental human right" they are exercising their Constitutional rights. Including their right to free speech, to bear arms, to protest the Federal government, etc. > the correct answer is to vote, talk to your neighbors and friends, and peaceably protest, Which they have done and they continue to do. See: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/the-neighbors-defending-minnesota-from-ice/685769/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/the-neighbors-defe... for more about the local community of neighbour loving US citizens acting in defence of their community.
      - pclmulqdq 9mo ago
        The main thing I see these protesters doing wrong is that they seem to freak out and fight back once they get aarrested. This is not how to deal with under-trained law enforcement unless you want to die. Get arrested, get booked, have your friends pay your bail, and then have a media circus around the court cases that result. This seems lame and takes some self-control to do, but it works really well. Instead, people are getting killed and videos are coming out that seem very chaotic, where people with different predispositions than you can empathize with the police. If those videos were people getting arrested and pepper sprayed for speaking out and for helping each other, they would hit a lot harder for a much larger population.
- Perceval 9mo ago
  Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually and without having to protect your face/identity. It was enshrined in the First Amendment as a fundamental check on the federal government in order to recognize the natural right of a self-governing people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. What is not something that should be gone casually – or really at all – is an attempt to engage in insurrection with black bloc or globalized intifada insurgency tactics to prevent the enforcement of law.
  - themafia 9mo ago
    > Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually Then you are going to be identified and your conversations monitored. This is precisely the outcome the article is complaining about. I find that expectation absurd. > of a self-governing people This describes the majority not the individual. > and petition the government There is no expectation or statement that your anonymity will be protected. The entire idea of a "petition" immediately defies this. > to prevent the enforcement of law. How does "tracking ICE" _prevent_ the enforcement of the law? Your views on the first amendment suddenly became quite narrow.
    - account42 9mo ago
      > How does "tracking ICE" _prevent_ the enforcement of the law? Your views on the first amendment suddenly became quite narrow. Because the whole point of tracking ICE is to help people dodge them. It's absurd that people cry foul when the government goes after people actively opposing the rule of law.
      - fc417fc802 9mo ago
        > It's absurd that people cry foul when the government goes after people actively opposing the rule of law. I expect the vast majority of government abuses in recent history the world over have to at least some degree followed the law according to those carrying out the acts. Thus it is almost to be expected that as a situation escalates those crying foul might occasionally find themselves opposing the rule of law as described by those in power. To state it plainly, not all "rule of law" is subjectively equal.
- JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
  > Protesting is not something you should do "casually” Neither is violently undermining our Constitutional order. These folks should be on notice that they will be prosecuted. If we played by Trump’s book, we’d charge them with treason and then let them appeal against the death penalty for the rest of their lives.
  - themafia 9mo ago
    > Neither is violently undermining our Constitutional order. Ah, the "ends justify the means" then? Is this something you want applied _against_ you? Seems reckless. > These folks should be on notice that they will be prosecuted. They will not. > If we played by Trump’s book Moral relativism will turn you into the thing you profess to hate. > we’d charge them with treason and then let them appeal against the death penalty for the rest of their lives. Words have actual meaning. We're clearly past that and just choosing words that match emotional states. If you don't want to fix anything and just want to demonstrate your frustrations then this will work. If you want something to change you stand no chance with this attitude. I'm not choosing sides. I'm simply saying if you want to avoid FBI attention then take your heart off your sleeve and smarten up.
    - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
      > Is this something you want applied _against_ you? It’s literally happening. And sure. If I try to murder the Vice President or murder Americans as part of a political stunt, hold me to account. Those were the rules I thought we were all playing by. > If you want something to change you stand no chance with this attitude Strongly disagree. There are new political tools on the table. Unilaterally disarming is strategically stupid. > if you want to avoid FBI attention then take your heart off your sleeve and smarten up I’m going to bet I’ve gotten more language written into state and federal law than you have. That isn’t a flex. It’s just me saying that I know how to wield power, it and doesn’t come from trying to avoid crooked federal agents. If they’re crooked, they’ll come for you when you speak up. In my experience, they’re more bark than bite.
  - rbanffy 9mo ago
- LightBug1 9mo ago
  [flagged]
GorbachevyChase 9mo ago
They had already been outed by internet sleuths possibly, but not necessarily, informed by leaks from the police. The FBI is making a press release about an investigation only to save face because the criminal conspiracy is already common knowledge among those interested. In the universe of a competent FBI, which I think is ours, they already know who is in the network. They have well-publicized, patently unlawful dragnet signals intelligence collection capabilities. The targets are people who organize openly on Zoom and Discord, and broadcast volumes of their ideology on bumper stickers, Mastodon, and Blue-Twitter. So why does (if the press is to be believed) an authoritarian, fascist, ultra-right-wing regime allow them to operate? I feel like ICE is Floyd/BLM repeated as farce.
- zahlman 9mo ago
  > In the universe of a competent FBI, which I think is ours, they already know who is in the network. Certainly they know the handles of those people, and what they've said and what documents they've exchanged. Connecting Signal accounts to real-world identity... well, that's definitely the FBI's wheelhouse, but some might make it easier or harder than others. But there are a few cases where even the Internet sleuths are pretty confident about identity. > So why does (if the press is to be believed) an authoritarian, fascist, ultra-right-wing regime allow them to operate? Rationality requires treating behaviour inconsistent with a quality as evidence against that quality.
- mindslight 9mo ago
  > So why does (if the press is to be believed) an authoritarian, fascist, ultra-right-wing regime allow them to operate? So why does (if the service manual is to be believed) not changing my car's oil still allow my car to keep operating? (does this kind of ignore-any-sort-of-abstract-model "insight" sway anybody who is not extremely stoned?)

Seems like there are hundreds of people in those groups. Can't be hard to get into for some skilled undercover cops. TV shows have shown me they do these things all the time!

themafia 9mo ago

It would help if they stopped holding demonstrations in front of facilities with huge amounts of facial recognition technology. Protesting is not something you should do "casually."

eleventyseven 9mo ago
Protesting is a fundamental human right and obligation. It is something that you should do as casually as you would voting, volunteering, and taking out the garbage: something you do from time to time when the moment demands it. See also: https://enwp.org/Chilling_effect https://enwp.org/Chilling_effect
- themafia 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - dns_snek 9mo ago
    > No. It's not. Governments are not natural. So you have no "fundamental" rights here. You could make the same moot point about all societal laws. Fundamental rights are determined by the constitution, the UN declaration of human rights, as well as any other local charters.
    - Claudus 9mo ago
      [flagged]
      - direwolf20 9mo ago
        If you believe rights are what God and the Constitution grant, then they're meaningless. Some piece of paper has no real–world relevance. Cops shooting people in the face has real–world relevance.
        Claudus 9mo ago
        [flagged]
      - jonathanlydall 9mo ago
        Barring physical limitations, what you can and can't do is ultimately determined by what the society you are by and large a part of deems to be acceptable behaviour. Government rules and social norms can change over time, it ultimately doesn't matter what you feel is "right" or what some law says is "right", it's really about what you can get away with. A large part of what you can get away with is determined about whether or not you will ultimately be penalized for your actions (possibly through violence), and laws can keep people aligned on what is or isn't going to be accepted and when people deemed to be acting in a socially unacceptable way are likely to be penalized in some form. While "rights" may be somewhat philosophical, they can have very real physical "weight" behind them in the form of other people "enforcing" them. And finally, in case you are mistakenly under the impression that I think it's okay for anyone to do anything they want so long as they can get away with it, I don't, but that discussion drifts into the territory of morality and ethics which, while related, are nevertheless different and very large topics of discussion in themselves.
      - idiotsecant 9mo ago
        God doesn't have a typewriter, as far as I know. When he gets one I hope he clears up which 99.9% of human religions are heretical and which 0.01% are divine law, that would be really helpful. In the meantime, rights are not granted by anyone. They are a contract between the governed and those that govern. Breaking that contract is the sort of thing that doesn't end up working out well for the governing class.
        9mo ago
  - mikkupikku 9mo ago
    Governments are natural; nature abhors a vacuum. Governments which at least pay lip service to the premise of respecting people's rights are another matter entirely.
- oceanplexian 9mo ago
  > Protesting is a fundamental human right That doesn't include vandalism, it doesn't include blocking roads, looting, or assaulting people. What's obvious to me is that a certain class of protestors are intentionally provoking a response from the government by breaking the law. Inevitably someone is arrested, hurt, or killed, and that is used as an excuse for more protests. The protests get increasingly violent in an escalating cycle. That process isn't exercising a "fundamental human right", it's a form of violence. If you don't agree with the Government the correct answer is to vote, have a dialog, and if you choose to protest do it in a way that's respectful to your neighbors and the people around you.
  - defrost 9mo ago
    > a certain class of protestors Yes, a proportionally large and significant number of local Minnesota community members of long and good standing. > are intentionally provoking a response from the government are reacting to excessive over reach by outsiders, directed by the Federal government to act in a punative manner. > Inevitably someone is arrested, hurt, or killed, This has already happened. Multiple times. As was obvious from the outset given the unprofessional behaviour and attitudes of the not-police sent in wearing masks. > [the people aren't] exercising a "fundamental human right" they are exercising their Constitutional rights. Including their right to free speech, to bear arms, to protest the Federal government, etc. > the correct answer is to vote, talk to your neighbors and friends, and peaceably protest, Which they have done and they continue to do. See: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/the-neighbors-defending-minnesota-from-ice/685769/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/the-neighbors-defe... for more about the local community of neighbour loving US citizens acting in defence of their community.
    - pclmulqdq 9mo ago
      The main thing I see these protesters doing wrong is that they seem to freak out and fight back once they get aarrested. This is not how to deal with under-trained law enforcement unless you want to die. Get arrested, get booked, have your friends pay your bail, and then have a media circus around the court cases that result. This seems lame and takes some self-control to do, but it works really well. Instead, people are getting killed and videos are coming out that seem very chaotic, where people with different predispositions than you can empathize with the police. If those videos were people getting arrested and pepper sprayed for speaking out and for helping each other, they would hit a lot harder for a much larger population.
Perceval 9mo ago
Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually and without having to protect your face/identity. It was enshrined in the First Amendment as a fundamental check on the federal government in order to recognize the natural right of a self-governing people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. What is not something that should be gone casually – or really at all – is an attempt to engage in insurrection with black bloc or globalized intifada insurgency tactics to prevent the enforcement of law.
- themafia 9mo ago
  > Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually Then you are going to be identified and your conversations monitored. This is precisely the outcome the article is complaining about. I find that expectation absurd. > of a self-governing people This describes the majority not the individual. > and petition the government There is no expectation or statement that your anonymity will be protected. The entire idea of a "petition" immediately defies this. > to prevent the enforcement of law. How does "tracking ICE" _prevent_ the enforcement of the law? Your views on the first amendment suddenly became quite narrow.
  - account42 9mo ago
    > How does "tracking ICE" _prevent_ the enforcement of the law? Your views on the first amendment suddenly became quite narrow. Because the whole point of tracking ICE is to help people dodge them. It's absurd that people cry foul when the government goes after people actively opposing the rule of law.
    - fc417fc802 9mo ago
      > It's absurd that people cry foul when the government goes after people actively opposing the rule of law. I expect the vast majority of government abuses in recent history the world over have to at least some degree followed the law according to those carrying out the acts. Thus it is almost to be expected that as a situation escalates those crying foul might occasionally find themselves opposing the rule of law as described by those in power. To state it plainly, not all "rule of law" is subjectively equal.
JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
> Protesting is not something you should do "casually” Neither is violently undermining our Constitutional order. These folks should be on notice that they will be prosecuted. If we played by Trump’s book, we’d charge them with treason and then let them appeal against the death penalty for the rest of their lives.
- themafia 9mo ago
  > Neither is violently undermining our Constitutional order. Ah, the "ends justify the means" then? Is this something you want applied _against_ you? Seems reckless. > These folks should be on notice that they will be prosecuted. They will not. > If we played by Trump’s book Moral relativism will turn you into the thing you profess to hate. > we’d charge them with treason and then let them appeal against the death penalty for the rest of their lives. Words have actual meaning. We're clearly past that and just choosing words that match emotional states. If you don't want to fix anything and just want to demonstrate your frustrations then this will work. If you want something to change you stand no chance with this attitude. I'm not choosing sides. I'm simply saying if you want to avoid FBI attention then take your heart off your sleeve and smarten up.
  - JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
    > Is this something you want applied _against_ you? It’s literally happening. And sure. If I try to murder the Vice President or murder Americans as part of a political stunt, hold me to account. Those were the rules I thought we were all playing by. > If you want something to change you stand no chance with this attitude Strongly disagree. There are new political tools on the table. Unilaterally disarming is strategically stupid. > if you want to avoid FBI attention then take your heart off your sleeve and smarten up I’m going to bet I’ve gotten more language written into state and federal law than you have. That isn’t a flex. It’s just me saying that I know how to wield power, it and doesn’t come from trying to avoid crooked federal agents. If they’re crooked, they’ll come for you when you speak up. In my experience, they’re more bark than bite.
- rbanffy 9mo ago
LightBug1 9mo ago
[flagged]

GorbachevyChase 9mo ago

They had already been outed by internet sleuths possibly, but not necessarily, informed by leaks from the police. The FBI is making a press release about an investigation only to save face because the criminal conspiracy is already common knowledge among those interested. In the universe of a competent FBI, which I think is ours, they already know who is in the network. They have well-publicized, patently unlawful dragnet signals intelligence collection capabilities. The targets are people who organize openly on Zoom and Discord, and broadcast volumes of their ideology on bumper stickers, Mastodon, and Blue-Twitter. So why does (if the press is to be believed) an authoritarian, fascist, ultra-right-wing regime allow them to operate? I feel like ICE is Floyd/BLM repeated as farce.

zahlman 9mo ago
> In the universe of a competent FBI, which I think is ours, they already know who is in the network. Certainly they know the handles of those people, and what they've said and what documents they've exchanged. Connecting Signal accounts to real-world identity... well, that's definitely the FBI's wheelhouse, but some might make it easier or harder than others. But there are a few cases where even the Internet sleuths are pretty confident about identity. > So why does (if the press is to be believed) an authoritarian, fascist, ultra-right-wing regime allow them to operate? Rationality requires treating behaviour inconsistent with a quality as evidence against that quality.
mindslight 9mo ago
> So why does (if the press is to be believed) an authoritarian, fascist, ultra-right-wing regime allow them to operate? So why does (if the service manual is to be believed) not changing my car's oil still allow my car to keep operating? (does this kind of ignore-any-sort-of-abstract-model "insight" sway anybody who is not extremely stoned?)