• motionofethre@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I have no context here. Is this true though?

    https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/08/designation-of-autistici-inventati-as-a-specially-designated-global-terrorist/

    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.

    • assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Anyways in the US Section 230 of whatever law prevents companies and organizations from being liable for content users post to their websites. How is this any different than FB hosting the breeding grounds for Proud Boys et al, other than them not being a US company and them being leftist-aligned?

    • shininghero@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      14 hours ago

      This is the equivalent of blaming Dewalt for manufacturing angle grinders, simply because a bike thief bought and used one to steal yours.

    • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I speak to a friend about antifascism as we take the subway to the job. That absolutely makes the subway a terrorist organization!!! Thank your for your attention to this matter. SDF User Not‑yet‑President lambalicious (verified™).

      • nightlily@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 hours ago

        That was the most blatant false flag attempt I’ve ever seen. I can’t believe anyone takes this supposed group, that speaks worse German than I do, as anything other than a poorly disguised Russian proxy attack. Of course it plays in Ami interests as well.

    • Freeposity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I don’t know, but the people making this charge routinely deflect any criticism about the manufacture and sale of guns in the USA by stating that guns are just tools and it’s individuals who commit crimes, not the tools they use or create.

      Hypocrisy in the Republican party is not a bug, it’s a feature.

    • assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I’d argue it doesn’t matter. If they offer e2ee email, they can’t be aware of the content of any messages exchanged.

      Unless they were informed one of their email accounts belonged to someone convicted of committing an actual act of domestic terror, they would be completely in the dark about who’s using their email services.

      Given its this US state department issuing the statement, I wouldn’t believe any accusation leveled at all without proof. I’d need to see evidence that A/I knowingly provided services to a convicted domestic terrorist for me to believe this is anything other than trying to stamp out E2EE.

      • motionofethre@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        14 hours ago

        If it was e2e anonymous services, I would agree completely, however their policy indicates it’s different. They apparently selectively choose who and what to host. It’s not even clear it’s encrypted.

        I’m not arguing that they are guilty or bad, but rather that this is different from a bad actor using Proton over For.

        A/I merely selects and filters the individuals to whom the Services are delivered to in order to reduce the risk of violations of our policies. By preventively asking to submit a written statement of intents, we can evaluate the affinity of every Service request from potential new users before any account is approved; the aforementioned statements are always evaluated in person by an appointee of A/I and deleted right after the request process is terminated.

        Every written statement always undertakes a non-automated process of case-by-case examination, occasionally involving some follow-up questions and observations that the appointee will send to the requestor in dialogue via a dedicated webpage.

        https://www.autistici.org/who/policy

        • assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          14 hours ago

          So they have a TOS like Facebook or any other large platform, and reserve the right to refuse service?

          Unless they’re knowingly doing business with a known convicted terrorist, I fail to see how this makes them a terrorist support platform.

          • motionofethre@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            14 hours ago

            Yeah. I’m not suggesting TOS indicates guilt, but just the “I can’t control my users” argument is void.

            • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              13 hours ago

              They can’t control their users once provisioning them. Once again, this is not different than any local restaurant.

            • assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              14 hours ago

              May I ask why FB, Twitter, etc. get protection from liability from 3rd party content under Section 230 of the Communications Act but these folks don’t? They both have a TOS and reserve the right to refuse service.

              • atmothin@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 hours ago

                Epstein ring communicated a lot through Gmail for years and they still never went after those involved nor Google

                @[email protected] how would you explain Google still not being sanctioned based on your logic?

              • doben@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 hours ago

                Capitalist business vs. anti-capitalist activism. What’s happening is repression by a capitalist state against antifascist organisation, nobody cares about laws.
                The antifascist structures can’t effectively work inside the rules of a system designed by and for capitalists and the law (in this case) does not exactly include foreign structures. The US (and its corpos) does all kinds of unlawful things outside of its borders, if you haven’t noticed. However, the law shields domestic corporations from foreign laws, as they are usually headquartered in the US and only need to adhere to US law as this is only applied domestically.