A/I shuts down

Or maybe people realize that revolutions, and the civil war that almost always ensue, are a very high price to pay, for a very uncertain reward.

Talking about the Arab spring, look what it lead to:

- Egypt and Tunisia are again being lead by a dictator, it's just a younger one.

- Libya is destroyed, lacks leadership and conflict could resume any day should Haftar decide he doesn't like the result of the upcoming (but long postponed) elections.

- Syria has suffered the worst civil war of the decade and the situation is still very brittle. It looks like Jolani could bring redemption to Syria, but with the Israeli playing around with fire it could also collapse any day. And that's assuming Jolani doesn't turn into a dictator himself: we're not talking about someone with a good track record of honoring his promises (which is a good thing when the promise is made to ISIS or Al Qaeda, but still).

Or sue, or organize and protest, or win the next election. Not every government problem warrants revolution, and not needing to revolt is not a failing of the people.

> Americans/Westerners (left, right, center) are way too comfortable for a revolution

A better read is that the situation for most Americans and "Westerners" whatever that means, is that things are good enough that the people do not see value in revolution, or they are able to adjust the government's course enough through elections, redress, courts and other political feedback mechanisms.

This is not what happened on J6, and is specifically why it was not an insurrection.

What did work for them was pouring money into the election system and party apparatus, media, the courts and then taking control over politics

> violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion

> especially: violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror

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?

Only then will you have the moral altitude you profess to have with the rest of the world, and not until then.

"Terrorist" is just this centurys' n-word - a phrase which racists cannot overtly use any more so they invented a new term to supplant it.

Delusions of grandeur / superiority complex much? Have you considered a posibility, that these voters just dont agree with your idea of what their best interests are?

>fictional terrorist organization called "antifa."

An organization so fictional, that just a few months back multiple members were convicted in a terrorist attack

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyedgnyn4mo

Antifa defenders just hide behind the fact that the movement is decentralized and leaderless by design, but that doesn't make it fictional.

They are obviously a terrorist organization and it is good to go after their financing and communication channels.

No one is claiming that Amy Klobuchar or Gavin Newsom is a member of antifa.

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.

So far, what it's detached itself from its sources of fossil fuels. With a little help from its great American friends.

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.

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.

How do you like them apples?

What kind of mickey mouse political left are you using for reference here? The Dems?

HN is extremely american-leaning, whose centre is firmly to the right compared to the rest of the world.

The government isn't attesting to your capabilities - that is still on you as a citizen.

It is absolute nonsense to ignore why the law exists while you complain about it existing.

Those two words refer to the same "type" of system where the members make a decision by ascent or descent. Both systems require an agreed upon barrier of acceptance.

They are the same. The US congress reaches decision by consensus.

> question your argument as to why.

I am also Italian, and I don't feel that "the dialectic and rhetoric" of their statements in any way gives and credibility to the US designation of a "violent antifa cells" equating them to terrorists on the level of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and so on. So there's that, being Italian is not some skill or ability that allows you or me to better understand their statements, especially since they are also translated to English...

> the same experience with such - or any - dialect in English.

That sounds like a cop-out to me, you obviously can express yourself in English quite well, and even if that were not the case phrases like "violent antifa cells", "far-left terrorist networks, built to enable them to organize, recruit, communicate, disseminate propaganda, share target information and tactics, and carry out violent attacks" should clearly show that is nothing more than the lowest form of fearmongering, propaganda and silencing of dissent by an authoritarian government.

Furthermore, especially as Italians, we should support these projects and not give in to notions that "maybe the broken fascist clock is right once in a while".

> wikipedia seems to agree with me on the existence of a "No global movment"

The first sentence: indica organizzazioni non governative, associazioni e singoli individui relativamente ETEROGENEI.

As you put it previously, "a protest group", does not at all convey the notion that these are many people with differing views, and as such there may well be also a violent minority like in any group. No, your comment paints them all with the same brush.

> such as comparing me to Trump :D

I did not compare you as a person to Trump, but the way you are misusing words.

> does not take away from the fact that the rhetoric used in the communication by the collective reminds me of the 'not so not violent' groups that at the very least orbited the violence, and, in my personal opinion, very much winked at and approved of it.

This would be the point were you cite some sources or quotes that give you that impression, rather than relying on your "Italianness" to support your argument.

> in your opinion - I don't criticize both sides equally?

As Italians we should criticize only one side and that is the fascists.

And maybe they used a Google camera for taking photos of their acts.

By the same logic, what prevents US from labelling Signal, Proton, and Google as ones supporting terrorist organizations?

Are those terrorist organizations too?

Moreover, ask yourself: why hasn't Germany accused A/I of being co-responsible of the attacks?

Technical intermediaries could be held responsible specifically for hosting the manifestos (under freedom of the press laws), but that requires an actual due process. Meanwhile, 100% of the authors and websites who inspired or relayed Anders Brejvik and other neo-fascist terrorists are still online and are not facing any kind of repression.

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.

We are having a discussion right now that would not be allowed if there was vetting.

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?

If that's disqualifying, a lot of US government contractors are in trouble.

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.

And what about signal? I am pretty sure many violent/terrorist groups use it too.

I don't have an opinion about this group, because I didn't even know it existed. But, like often with things related to the free speech, I think this topic is more complex than you make it out to be.

By your definition, then, Substack should be labelled as a terrorist organization and shutdown, yes?

And I don’t see anyone hand wringing about that list of bad guys. Calling some of them “left” is pretty ridiculous in the first place.

That part sounds a little like telling on oneself.

And allude to specific incidents without links? WTF?

How about workers rights? Slavery? Any progress that you'd think of as civilizing was not achieved without blood.

It’s actually not that hard to go to places where phones, cameras, and internet access is banned or heavily discouraged, and guess what? It’s just people talking to each other, like we did up until the mid 90s. Just providing a technology free context is enough to get people to talk to each other.

I am a huge technology freak, but I can’t reasonably deny what I see, and that is that communications technology, in its present form, has been a terrible disaster for human communication because it made it effortless.

As it turns out, making it effortless also made people not value it at an interpersonal level, and to lessen the value of all of the cultural machinery that hinges on communication ( and the effort of it) as a central pivot.

Every step that makes communication more instantaneous and effortless undermines the value of character, honesty, and accountability.

Follow this and you can see how this has brought us to where we are today, step by step, starting with the telegraph.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistici/Inventati

Italian Postal Police wiretapping (2004–2005)

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.

The difference is that the ownership of HN has their OWN freedom to choose who they let post on here, and what they let be posted.

This is known as the 'Freedom of Association': The right to come together with other people to collectively express, promote, or pursue their common interest. This right also includes the right to accept or decline membership in the group for whatever reason they want. HN can choose to only allow whatever they choose on their site.

In the United States, this right is actually established (according to court rulings) by the same First Amendment that establishes the right to free speech.

The right to free speech does not require a private individual or company give you a platform to make your speech.

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.

Remember, facts aren't real, there is no truth, and crime is legal (in the current "Justice" Dept).

But things like criticising governments, questioning political or economic paradigms, or just making fun of powerful people, should always be legal and protected.

Wrong. HN is not "censoring" you at all, which requires engaging in violence (or threat of violence) against you to inhibit you from speaking in public. HN is literally engaging in Free Speech itself. Take arguably the most fundamental free speech activity in a democracy: advocating to your peers for the candidate you wish to vote for and have elected to represent you. You've researched and listened to Alice, Bob and Carol. You decide the best is Alice, and to show your support you do the quintessential thing and put out a Vote For Alice lawn sign on your lawn. That's obviously free speech right? Now what if instead some volunteer from Alice's election team comes by and asks you if they can put up a sign on your property, and you say yes. That too clearly involves your free speech rights, even if you didn't pay for the sign. Now say Bob & Carol's campaigns turn up, and they ask to put up signs on your lawn too. You don't support them and say no. Have you censored them? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Free speech isn't "everything is equal nothing matters", everyone is trying collectively to iterate towards truth and value by making their cases and listening, without general use of force. To say that "I think this idea/person/item is the best choice" by definition is exclusionary, it's also saying "I think all the other ideas/persons/items are NOT the best choice". It can also simply be "I wish to engage with these subjects, not those". You can make a forum dedicated to airplanes & cats, and ban anyone who starts threads on boats & lizards. You may have nothing whatsoever against boats or lizards, but that's not what you personally want to focus on on your own forum you're paying for.

Hacker News is the private property of its owners. They have their own free speech rights. Exercising those rights is not censorship.

Others in turn are free to use their property and/or their voice on public property to make their cases, and they can try to convince you and vice versa. And there can be social consequences, if someone really dislikes your speech maybe they don't invite you to dinner anymore and urge others to do the same, who might agree (or go the other way, or just ignore it). Humans can get passionate sometimes. But by keeping violence out of the whole thing outside of narrow exceptions that undermine the approach itself, room is preserved for minds to be changed and rifts mended years or even decades later, and for ideas to come back around if someone cares enough.

Government enforcing things though always involves violence, either directly or one or more orders removed. But a general monopoly on the legitimate use of force is a defining feature of government. If government doesn't like Alice, and tells you take down the sign, or else, that's fundamental infringement. They're closing down the whole cycle (if a private person did that it'd also be a bunch of other crimes AND infringement, because private persons are not allowed to use violence against others at all by default outside of narrow exceptions). And if government tells you "oh you can leave up the sign about Alice, but it's not fair you censor Bob & Carol, you must put up signs for them too. Or else." that'd be equally infringing censorship. If everyone has a sign, it's the same message as nobody having one. It's still suppressing "I think Alice is the best choice".

>For a large part I see people using digital platforms as a primary method of expressing their thoughts and opinions.

It is easier and cheaper than any point in human history to put up your own website, including your own forum to try to form a community around. You have no right to an audience though.

>Governments in both the US and the EU have imposed restrictions on what platforms may host.

What? What restriction has government in the US imposed beyond the long standing and unchanged exceptions that prove the rule (which essentially boil down to threats of violence, comms integral to crime, defamation AFTER a court case to prove it, serious violations of personal self with zero public value like CSAM, and purely commercial speech engaging in fraud)?

>I think we have not reconciled yet how to reinterpret free speech online.

There is nothing to reinterpret. We've gotten it fine since the passage of Section 230. The problem are constant efforts to suppress what we've already got, in some cases coupled with completely orthogonal issues like failure to enforce ancient anti-trust legislation.

The libertarian Internet was a mistake and the world will be a better place when it's gone.

In criticizing their inconsistencies, you are highlighting and simultaneously missing your own inconsistencies.

How are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doing?

A/I wasn't like protonmail; they specifically provided IT support to terrorist groups, who would often be violent and would sometimes kill people. I mean to thoroughly vet your users and then make the services anonymous is a wild thing to do, all while encouraging violent users to use your site.