5 ms·

Keep in mind we're talking about communications services here, and one focusing on political speech at that. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establis

Keep in mind we're talking about communications services here, and one focusing on political speech at that. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In general I think the free lunch of centrally hosted services and persistent doxxable identities is nearing a close. It was inevitable that governments would meddle more, and more, and more - implicitly treating communications are something other than speech due to how encompassing the digital world has become - and now here we are.

GolfPopper 1mo ago
The current United States government is very keen on pushing the idea that there is a vast and shadowy international left-wing conspiracy waging war on it. This is, to be clear, lying nonsense.
- mrguyorama 1mo ago
  And despite it being transparent garbage, millions of Americans are eagerly lapping up Red Scare 2.0
- nonethewiser 1mo ago
  [flagged]
  - inigyou 1mo ago
    I support PKK because I run an IPFS node and I'm sure at least one person connected to PKK has uploaded at least one thing to IPFS at least one time. What's with you and your obsession with PKK? You probably support them too through some equally convoluted mechanism, but you're all over this thread saying anyone with any connection must be terminated.
    - nonethewiser 1mo ago
      PKK is the reason cited for sanctioning A/I. >I support PKK because I run an IPFS node and I'm sure at least one person connected to PKK has uploaded at least one thing to IPFS at least one time. That does not break the law. Knowingly providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization does. If you can show specific details of you knowingly providing material support of a labeled terrorist organization please share.
      - inigyou 1mo ago
        I know that st least one person connected to the PKK used IPFS at least one time. So it's knowing. And it's material support as shown by the a/i allegation.
  - deleted 1mo ago
    [deleted]
- CMay 1mo ago
  [flagged]
  - mindslight 1mo ago
    We've got a billionaire funded conspiracy openly ignoring the Constitution, wantonly trashing our American liberties, and yet you're still raging about "communist billionaires" ? The politics of billionaires as a group is not leftism, nor is it rightism. The politics of billionaires is self-serving authoritarianism. From each camp, they pick the sides of issues that stand to increase their own power, taking stakes in them as if they are horses. They will gladly support woke groupthink as long as it's getting results, and then readily switch to supporting anti-woke groupthink when society has had enough and the winds shift. The net effects from both phases are losses from our individual liberty, which have been accumulating for decades, and are presumably the source of your rightful anger. But please come to your senses!
    - CMay 1mo ago
      [flagged]
      - mindslight 1mo ago
        > As for the constitution, they are surrounded by lawyers and if they overstep something, they back off. They are applying unitary executive theory as a solution to a slow congress to address the many critical issues facing the US in our time, one of which is demonstrating to China that we can act, which is one more element of deterrence to prevent them from starting World War 3. The solution to save the country is to write off the Constitution in favor of "unitary executive theory" aka autocracy? Falling flat on our face in Iran creates a deterrent for China? I'm sorry, these are nothing more than partisan rationalizations. FWIW I was right there with you regarding the woke groupthink of the past decade, but as I said the real issue is that the political winds have shifted, and unless you shift with them you go from speaking truth to power to simply speaking for power's new buntings. I completely understood a vote for Trump 2016, I was the weirdo telling my friends he was likely to win. But by 2020 it was clear that he had no actual substantive policy or leadership, just more division and "I don't take responsibility at all". As I said, please come to your senses. You don't have to listen to my arguments (in fact you shouldn't, because what I said above aren't actually arguments - rather they're short blurbs to measure how far from centrist non-partisan reality you've gotten). But please listen to criticism from somewhere. Standing up for individual liberty in the face of tyranny is plain old-fashioned American, not woke.
nonethewiser 1mo ago
There is the absolutely perfect Supreme Court case that ruled against your theory. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/1 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/1 There is a law (18 U.S.C. § 2339B) that says you cant knowingly provide material support for designated foreign terrorist organizations. A law firm wanted to provide financial support and legal services to some, including the PKK (the same group A/I was accused of helping). They argued the federal law violated their first amendment rights. The court concludes that the first amendment doesn't protect your ability to provide material support including services and communication equipment and the law still stands today. Im curious. How would you argue the first amendment protects knowingly providing material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations?
- mindslight 1mo ago
  As I said to your first comment: positive arguments rooted in what is aren't terribly compelling when the government has gone off the rails (unfortunately). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49480377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49480377
  - nonethewiser 1mo ago
    Can you elaborate? The positive argument being that the law and judiciary disagree with you? The court decisions was 15 years ago when Obama was president btw.
    - mindslight 1mo ago
      I fully elaborated in the other comment, which you didn't respond to. There is a sibling reply that is on point as well. And sorry no, "Obama is responsible too" has no purchase with me.
- knollimar 1mo ago
  not the person you replied to, but the distinction between communication equipment vs press seems pretty small, no? Unless you're just saying the court disagrees, which is fair, but yuck
polski-g 1mo ago
Their infrastructure and services were used in domestic terrorist attacks on pregnancy centers in the United States, by the CHAZ operation in which two black teenagers were lynched, attempts to crash police helicopters, attempts to burn police officers alive. Providing material support to perpetrators of these actions would go above "speech".
- mindslight 1mo ago
  Basing an argument around the unavoidable physical embodiment of speech is sophistry. There is no "above". The "material support" you speak of is all just republishing speech. By the argument laid out by the government here, merely reading writings by terrorists would be illegal. You'd be providing "material support" by helping them spread their message to yourself - regardless of whether you're processing their writings with your network and computing device, or trafficking in their printed books.

GolfPopper 1mo ago

The current United States government is very keen on pushing the idea that there is a vast and shadowy international left-wing conspiracy waging war on it. This is, to be clear, lying nonsense.

mrguyorama 1mo ago
And despite it being transparent garbage, millions of Americans are eagerly lapping up Red Scare 2.0
nonethewiser 1mo ago
[flagged]
- inigyou 1mo ago
  I support PKK because I run an IPFS node and I'm sure at least one person connected to PKK has uploaded at least one thing to IPFS at least one time. What's with you and your obsession with PKK? You probably support them too through some equally convoluted mechanism, but you're all over this thread saying anyone with any connection must be terminated.
  - nonethewiser 1mo ago
    PKK is the reason cited for sanctioning A/I. >I support PKK because I run an IPFS node and I'm sure at least one person connected to PKK has uploaded at least one thing to IPFS at least one time. That does not break the law. Knowingly providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization does. If you can show specific details of you knowingly providing material support of a labeled terrorist organization please share.
    - inigyou 1mo ago
      I know that st least one person connected to the PKK used IPFS at least one time. So it's knowing. And it's material support as shown by the a/i allegation.
- deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]
CMay 1mo ago
[flagged]
- mindslight 1mo ago
  We've got a billionaire funded conspiracy openly ignoring the Constitution, wantonly trashing our American liberties, and yet you're still raging about "communist billionaires" ? The politics of billionaires as a group is not leftism, nor is it rightism. The politics of billionaires is self-serving authoritarianism. From each camp, they pick the sides of issues that stand to increase their own power, taking stakes in them as if they are horses. They will gladly support woke groupthink as long as it's getting results, and then readily switch to supporting anti-woke groupthink when society has had enough and the winds shift. The net effects from both phases are losses from our individual liberty, which have been accumulating for decades, and are presumably the source of your rightful anger. But please come to your senses!
  - CMay 1mo ago
    [flagged]
    - mindslight 1mo ago
      > As for the constitution, they are surrounded by lawyers and if they overstep something, they back off. They are applying unitary executive theory as a solution to a slow congress to address the many critical issues facing the US in our time, one of which is demonstrating to China that we can act, which is one more element of deterrence to prevent them from starting World War 3. The solution to save the country is to write off the Constitution in favor of "unitary executive theory" aka autocracy? Falling flat on our face in Iran creates a deterrent for China? I'm sorry, these are nothing more than partisan rationalizations. FWIW I was right there with you regarding the woke groupthink of the past decade, but as I said the real issue is that the political winds have shifted, and unless you shift with them you go from speaking truth to power to simply speaking for power's new buntings. I completely understood a vote for Trump 2016, I was the weirdo telling my friends he was likely to win. But by 2020 it was clear that he had no actual substantive policy or leadership, just more division and "I don't take responsibility at all". As I said, please come to your senses. You don't have to listen to my arguments (in fact you shouldn't, because what I said above aren't actually arguments - rather they're short blurbs to measure how far from centrist non-partisan reality you've gotten). But please listen to criticism from somewhere. Standing up for individual liberty in the face of tyranny is plain old-fashioned American, not woke.

nonethewiser 1mo ago

There is the absolutely perfect Supreme Court case that ruled against your theory. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/1 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/1 There is a law (18 U.S.C. § 2339B) that says you cant knowingly provide material support for designated foreign terrorist organizations. A law firm wanted to provide financial support and legal services to some, including the PKK (the same group A/I was accused of helping). They argued the federal law violated their first amendment rights. The court concludes that the first amendment doesn't protect your ability to provide material support including services and communication equipment and the law still stands today. Im curious. How would you argue the first amendment protects knowingly providing material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations?

mindslight 1mo ago
As I said to your first comment: positive arguments rooted in what is aren't terribly compelling when the government has gone off the rails (unfortunately). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49480377 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49480377
- nonethewiser 1mo ago
  Can you elaborate? The positive argument being that the law and judiciary disagree with you? The court decisions was 15 years ago when Obama was president btw.
  - mindslight 1mo ago
    I fully elaborated in the other comment, which you didn't respond to. There is a sibling reply that is on point as well. And sorry no, "Obama is responsible too" has no purchase with me.
knollimar 1mo ago
not the person you replied to, but the distinction between communication equipment vs press seems pretty small, no? Unless you're just saying the court disagrees, which is fair, but yuck

polski-g 1mo ago

Their infrastructure and services were used in domestic terrorist attacks on pregnancy centers in the United States, by the CHAZ operation in which two black teenagers were lynched, attempts to crash police helicopters, attempts to burn police officers alive. Providing material support to perpetrators of these actions would go above "speech".

mindslight 1mo ago
Basing an argument around the unavoidable physical embodiment of speech is sophistry. There is no "above". The "material support" you speak of is all just republishing speech. By the argument laid out by the government here, merely reading writings by terrorists would be illegal. You'd be providing "material support" by helping them spread their message to yourself - regardless of whether you're processing their writings with your network and computing device, or trafficking in their printed books.