4 ms·
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 s
by Grombobulous 2mo ago
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.
My impression is that they didn’t say “hey we don’t have customer information but we don’t service violent groups and we will responsibly investigate and discontinue service to offenders.”
Their vibe was much more defiant, like, “we designed this to be anonymous and specifically intend/expect for it to be used in any way regardless of legality and are okay with it.”
Is it right for the US to be the global arbiter of this issue and domains in general? Of course not.
- ceejayoz 2mo ago> A/I knowingly provided services to groups that verifiably did some rather violent things they are accused of If that's disqualifying, a lot of US government contractors are in trouble.
- beej71 2mo agoOr J6.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- Grombobulous 2mo ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 2mo ago> There are very logical reasons why the state wielding force and violence is preferable to the alternatives… Seems like there are some pretty clear historical exceptions to this rule.
- Grombobulous 2mo ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 2mo ago> we’ve already established an okay-ish democratic system We have pardoned Jan 6ers convicted of "wielding force and violence" for political goals in goverment positions now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch is uncomfortably close to the situation.
- SpicyLemonZest 2mo agoAnd everyone involved in hiring and pardoning them should go to prison. I can't speak for everyone, but many of us really do have a principled opposition to political violence.
- mitxela 1mo ago[dead]
- stanleykm 2mo agowell depends on if you are in the group the state is wielding that power for or not..
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- pepperoni_pizza 2mo ago> “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.” That is also what Signal does. Or absolutely any end-to-end encrypted communication service at all - these are explicitly designed not to retain details of communication. Do you want to declare them terrorists too?
- Grombobulous 2mo agoWhat Signal does is different than what A/I was in a number of ways.
- Jeff_Brown 2mo agoPlease elaborate!
- pepperoni_pizza 2mo agoYou won't elaborate though, just make vague accusations.
- ricardobeat 2mo agoI think the difference they alluded to is that they manually vetoed new users, presumably based on their self-declared goals and ideology, whereas Signal etc are neutral platforms.
- Grombobulous 2mo agoYeah I didn’t elaborate since this was explained elsewhere in the thread.
- pepperoni_pizza 2mo agoThe A/I vetting was in the form of a form asking why do you want A/I email or blog. You could write anything in it. Meanwhile, Signal requires a phone number, so it knows much more about your identity than A/I did.
- fl0id 2mo agoin 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.