i like the idea. I dont think it is cringe. My advice is to build up small and grow slowly. In the process prove to the world that you guys are capable of guiding your community from malicious actors so that you dont get suddenly a court order to take your servers offline or maybe have multiple servers in multiple locations. Also prove to the world along the way that you wont fold in 20 years and sell all the collected wisdom to google or openai etc.
Honestly second one is too hard to do because how can you stop the scrapers from scraping your content.
i wish we invent digital landmines that will not get activated when clicked by the humans but will take down the server thats trying to scrape without permission.
"After 2005 we have been constantly pestered by prosecutors and security forces (and even by the Vatican! [4]) asking us to hand over users’ data and identities and we are proud to say we were always able to answer: we are sorry, but we do not have them."
The manifesto serves a different function imo, and having been written in 2002 makes it also a historical document through which one can view their current situation and later evolution. It is interesting to think of a group starting from that standpoint in 2002 and reaching now a level of providing infrastructure to movements across the world while staying true to their values.
still its ultimately not super clear i would say after many years they could have a simple landing page with a clear and consice paragraph. i dont see why this type of stuff needs to be put into manifestos and poems.
"we beleive information and coms should be free. we provide as non profit. reach out for more info on specifics. services include xyz. we do it from idealist standpoint so not everyone is rendered services. manual review."
cant beleive how many words flew by before i reached that conclusion. if it was stamped 2026 people would call it AI slop.
I know them. I think I even had an account there once.
How did it go from
> The services we provide are not intended for (directly or indirectly) commercial use, or to be used by organized religions or political parties
to
> Autistici Inventati identifies itself as an “anti-fascist” and “anti-militarist” organization opposed to capitalism and exclusively provides its services to vetted individuals, collectives, and groups it perceives to be aligned with its ideology, including to sanctioned terrorist organizations such as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been designated by the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union for its use of terrorist tactics leading to thousands of deaths in Türkiye, Iraq, and Syria since its establishment in 1984.
A/I explicitly state they don't provide stuff to groups like political parties. So regardless of culpability, they would be at least violating their own rules.
> Today we were made aware that the US Government has targeted a small, volunteer-run, technology collective from Italy with disproportionate sanctions as anyone can read in the Treasury Department Statement, the State Department Statement and the related Executive Order.
> We deny all allegations included in the statements, while we strongly affirm our dedication to providing a platform of tools for digital self-defense, addressing the need of free communication for activists and other individuals, groups and associations.
> We will not back down, we will keep doing what we have been doing all these years and we will do whatever is in our possibility to counter the false allegations made by a politically desperate administration with the sole intention of swaying people and media attention away from their own violence and warmongering.
> Antifascism and anticapitalism are not terrorism. Protesting is not terrorism. And everyone has the right to speak out and to struggle for humanity.
Leaving 50,000 people – including the elderly, the vulnerable and the sick – without electricity in Berlin in the middle of winter during the festive season is being passed off as activism?
The terrorists who caused this suffering also argued with anti-capitalism.
So anyone who claims that anti-capitalism and anti-fascism cannot also be forms of terrorism is simply a propagandist.
Why do you think these volunteers supported the attack? I don't think there's a published statement to the effect. Even the U.S. government does not claim that (at least not in its written communication).
The perpetrators very likely used Apple and Google services, too, and no one views that as some sort of endorsement by the companies.
And I would bet that a quite few people from those bubbles would answer yes.
For me, statements like "antifacism and anticapitalism are not terrorism" is propaganda hidden in political slogans, not meaningful definitions. Their intention is to shield acts committed under those labels from being judged by the same standard as politcally less sympathetic violence.
Terrorism does not stop being terrorism because the people claim to fight capitalism, fascism, religion, imperialism or anything else?
Is Christianity terrorism? As a religion obviously not. But still horrific acts were done in the name of Christianity and the Islam. Just ask the witches...
So labeling yourself an anti-fascist or anti-capitalist does not magically makes you a non-terrorist.
So labeling yourself an anti-fascist or anti-capitalist does not magically makes you a non-terrorist
nor does the label make a terrorist. it's a neutral statement. the original claim was that the label alone means you support/condone the actions of those who engage in terrorist acts in the name of that label.
> And I would bet that a quite few people from those bubbles would answer yes.
while i don’t have a dog in this particular fight, you can find “quite a few people” who will answer yes to just about the craziest shit you can imagine. it’s like the rule 34 of dipshittery. this most certainly does not make christians liable for the kkk or grandpa style republicans liable for fascists or whatever. and we probably need more evidence than that to justify what’s happening here.
Yours is simply a logical fallacy. Antifascism and anticapitalism are not terrorism. That's a fact, they are ideologies expressed in a multitude of ways, most of which absolutely pacific.
This doesn't mean that it's impossible for terrorist acts to be committed in the name of those ideologies, but also this doesn't make those ideologies inherently equivalent to terrorism.
the content is written by a group of autistics and displays characteristic lack of social situational awareness, i.e. it's tone-deaf as to how it will be recieved. It comes off as extremely pretentious, bordering even on megalomaniacal (it's a "manifesto" after all - something typically left to serial killers, unabomber types, and bond villains...)
They are now flagged as a terrorist group by the federal gov. So, I wasn't speaking hyperbole.
the content is written by a group of autistics and displays characteristic lack of social situational awareness, i.e. it's tone-deaf as to how it will be recieved. It comes off as extremely pretentious, bordering even on megalomaniacal (it's a "manifesto" after all - something typically left to serial killers, unabomber types, and bond villains...)
can't resist given the context, but it should be embarrassing for whom.
When one says a text is embarrassing there are generally three potential objects of embarrassment, the writer, the reader, or, if there is one, the target of the text.
In the case of a manifesto the manifesto writer intends for the target of the manifesto to be embarrassed, but often the actually embarrassed is the unsuspecting writer and the cringing reader.
it is of course a bit of a stretch on some of the meanings of embarrassed, as many manifestos want their targets to suffer things far worse than embarrassment, so let us say embarrassment is just one of the negative things a manifesto hopes to see in its target.
Here are some synonyms for embarrassed - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/thesaurus/embarrassed
I believe as a general rule artistic manifestos are often very focused on causing some of these feelings in their targets.
to make some examples: if we assume that the target of the Communist Manifesto is Capitalism we can say that it is hoped that Capitalism suffers negative consequences, amongst which embarrassment is a relatively minor one.
If we assume that the Surrealist manifesto has a target of the old garde of French art we can say it is hoped that the old garde suffers some embarrassment and fades away, being inconsequential to the world that surrealism has created.
The same operation seems to exist for any manifesto I have ever read, including the manifesto of the current discussion which, surprisingly, is not at all for any of the things it has announced it stands against.
If you do not agree, please provide an example of a single manifesto that says we stand for certain things and the things that are against us are really great and we love them.
cringe in the modern vernacular means "behavior, content, or situations that cause acute embarrassment, awkwardness, or secondhand embarrassment"
As a general rule most manifestos have a subtext of how the manifesto writers are brilliant people meant to get rid of the rubbish of the past and fix the current situation in whatever subject the manifesto is focused on. After the time of the text is gone and the manifesto is a piece of the past these manifestos may elicit either the feeling of how spot on they were, secondhand embarrassment, or just hilarity, sometimes even mixes of these feelings if your relation to the movement the manifesto champions is a complicated one.
Thus when Andre Breton writes his actual poetry I might like it, but when he starts writing about what Surrealism will achieve I start thinking "give it a rest, Breton" and looking away at Yeats as someone not quite as embarrassing.
André Robert Breton was a French writer and poet, known as a principal theorist and co-founder of surrealism. His writings include the first Surrealist Manifesto of 1924, in which he defined surrealism as "pure psychic automatism"
this is wonderful, respect and all support!
to me it feels like, peaceful good tech guys supporting freedom of speech and many other things that are becoming more and more critical nowadays!
the facts that US tardocracy classifies them as criminally just confirms the greatness and positiveness of the actions of this group!
[dead]
i like the idea. I dont think it is cringe. My advice is to build up small and grow slowly. In the process prove to the world that you guys are capable of guiding your community from malicious actors so that you dont get suddenly a court order to take your servers offline or maybe have multiple servers in multiple locations. Also prove to the world along the way that you wont fold in 20 years and sell all the collected wisdom to google or openai etc. Honestly second one is too hard to do because how can you stop the scrapers from scraping your content.
i wish we invent digital landmines that will not get activated when clicked by the humans but will take down the server thats trying to scrape without permission.
It's titled as being published in 2002 and now, over 20 years later, they have been designated as a global terrorist. - for context
also for context this is a shorter version and represents well the situation
https://www.inventati.org/who/collective
"After 2005 we have been constantly pestered by prosecutors and security forces (and even by the Vatican! [4]) asking us to hand over users’ data and identities and we are proud to say we were always able to answer: we are sorry, but we do not have them."
Perhaps this "free Palestine" decal gives them away...
I don't agree with most of their political agenda but at least i know they aren't a psy-op since the us scapegoated them lol
Should have linked their "Policy" page instead. That's where they actually talk about who they are and what they want.
The manifesto serves a different function imo, and having been written in 2002 makes it also a historical document through which one can view their current situation and later evolution. It is interesting to think of a group starting from that standpoint in 2002 and reaching now a level of providing infrastructure to movements across the world while staying true to their values.
still its ultimately not super clear i would say after many years they could have a simple landing page with a clear and consice paragraph. i dont see why this type of stuff needs to be put into manifestos and poems.
"we beleive information and coms should be free. we provide as non profit. reach out for more info on specifics. services include xyz. we do it from idealist standpoint so not everyone is rendered services. manual review."
cant beleive how many words flew by before i reached that conclusion. if it was stamped 2026 people would call it AI slop.
This is just how political Italian is.
I know them. I think I even had an account there once.
How did it go from
> The services we provide are not intended for (directly or indirectly) commercial use, or to be used by organized religions or political parties
to
> Autistici Inventati identifies itself as an “anti-fascist” and “anti-militarist” organization opposed to capitalism and exclusively provides its services to vetted individuals, collectives, and groups it perceives to be aligned with its ideology, including to sanctioned terrorist organizations such as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been designated by the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union for its use of terrorist tactics leading to thousands of deaths in Türkiye, Iraq, and Syria since its establishment in 1984.
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0616/
Is this allegation simply not true? Do they have nothing in common with PKK?
Is the justice department allegation true? Or is it just that this group provides privacy and security stuff and that group happened to use it?
If I sell hammers and someone buys one and bashes someone with it, it’s not my fault.
If I sell a hammer called the “head cracker 3000” only to angry people who tell me who they want to bash, that’s different.
A/I explicitly state they don't provide stuff to groups like political parties. So regardless of culpability, they would be at least violating their own rules.
Related:
A Statement by A/I Collective About US Sanctions
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49477854
> Today we were made aware that the US Government has targeted a small, volunteer-run, technology collective from Italy with disproportionate sanctions as anyone can read in the Treasury Department Statement, the State Department Statement and the related Executive Order.
> We deny all allegations included in the statements, while we strongly affirm our dedication to providing a platform of tools for digital self-defense, addressing the need of free communication for activists and other individuals, groups and associations.
> We will not back down, we will keep doing what we have been doing all these years and we will do whatever is in our possibility to counter the false allegations made by a politically desperate administration with the sole intention of swaying people and media attention away from their own violence and warmongering.
> Antifascism and anticapitalism are not terrorism. Protesting is not terrorism. And everyone has the right to speak out and to struggle for humanity.
> Collettivo Autistici / Inventati — “Socializzare saperi senza fondare poteri”
> Stay human
Leaving 50,000 people – including the elderly, the vulnerable and the sick – without electricity in Berlin in the middle of winter during the festive season is being passed off as activism? The terrorists who caused this suffering also argued with anti-capitalism. So anyone who claims that anti-capitalism and anti-fascism cannot also be forms of terrorism is simply a propagandist.
Why do you think these volunteers supported the attack? I don't think there's a published statement to the effect. Even the U.S. government does not claim that (at least not in its written communication).
The perpetrators very likely used Apple and Google services, too, and no one views that as some sort of endorsement by the companies.
By stating "Antifascism and anticapitalism are not terrorism" you create a hard statement: Anything labeled as anti-capitalism is not terrorism.
And far too often people downplay their violence and ruthlessness by using those labels as an excuse.
islam is not terrorism. christianity is not terrorism.
are you arguing that those statements are false?
because terrorist acts have been done in the name of both.
I could equally ask "Is capitalism terrorism?"
And I would bet that a quite few people from those bubbles would answer yes.
For me, statements like "antifacism and anticapitalism are not terrorism" is propaganda hidden in political slogans, not meaningful definitions. Their intention is to shield acts committed under those labels from being judged by the same standard as politcally less sympathetic violence.
Terrorism does not stop being terrorism because the people claim to fight capitalism, fascism, religion, imperialism or anything else?
Is Christianity terrorism? As a religion obviously not. But still horrific acts were done in the name of Christianity and the Islam. Just ask the witches...
So labeling yourself an anti-fascist or anti-capitalist does not magically makes you a non-terrorist.
So labeling yourself an anti-fascist or anti-capitalist does not magically makes you a non-terrorist
nor does the label make a terrorist. it's a neutral statement. the original claim was that the label alone means you support/condone the actions of those who engage in terrorist acts in the name of that label.
> And I would bet that a quite few people from those bubbles would answer yes.
while i don’t have a dog in this particular fight, you can find “quite a few people” who will answer yes to just about the craziest shit you can imagine. it’s like the rule 34 of dipshittery. this most certainly does not make christians liable for the kkk or grandpa style republicans liable for fascists or whatever. and we probably need more evidence than that to justify what’s happening here.
Yours is simply a logical fallacy. Antifascism and anticapitalism are not terrorism. That's a fact, they are ideologies expressed in a multitude of ways, most of which absolutely pacific. This doesn't mean that it's impossible for terrorist acts to be committed in the name of those ideologies, but also this doesn't make those ideologies inherently equivalent to terrorism.
By that logic, you think all Muslims should be punished for 9/11.
Wait, they weren’t?
Anything that splits the ruling class is a plus
I am all for opposing Empire, but this is incredibly cringe and self-defeating.
Part of the cringe comes from certain quirks of Italian speakers using English.
why? explain, also using cring as word is incredibly cringe and self-defeating.
But please exaplain why, or just throwing s** randomly?
word what they do in 1 paragraph and see not a single distinguishing feature.
wrapping your pitch with the word manifesto and writing in poems to try to make it so can be considered a bit cringe.
its a taste ofc., but calling things cringe is also subjective isnt it.
[flagged]
Classic ad hominem and straw man with no substance. Congratulations for the straightforward self-defeat.
the content is written by a group of autistics and displays characteristic lack of social situational awareness, i.e. it's tone-deaf as to how it will be recieved. It comes off as extremely pretentious, bordering even on megalomaniacal (it's a "manifesto" after all - something typically left to serial killers, unabomber types, and bond villains...)
They are now flagged as a terrorist group by the federal gov. So, I wasn't speaking hyperbole.
sorry what?
the content is written by a group of autistics and displays characteristic lack of social situational awareness, i.e. it's tone-deaf as to how it will be recieved. It comes off as extremely pretentious, bordering even on megalomaniacal (it's a "manifesto" after all - something typically left to serial killers, unabomber types, and bond villains...)
I don't think so, care to elaborate?
pretty much the whole genre of manifestos is full of cringe inducing texts.
Why?
answered in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49488138
as an aside younger writers of a certain poetic bent often want to write manifestos, and damn those tend to be really embarrassing.
See also https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/
Embarrassing for who?
can't resist given the context, but it should be embarrassing for whom.
When one says a text is embarrassing there are generally three potential objects of embarrassment, the writer, the reader, or, if there is one, the target of the text.
In the case of a manifesto the manifesto writer intends for the target of the manifesto to be embarrassed, but often the actually embarrassed is the unsuspecting writer and the cringing reader.
>> the manifesto writer intends for the target of the manifesto to be embarrassed
Huh? Citation please.
(and good catch on 'whom')
>Huh? Citation please.
it is of course a bit of a stretch on some of the meanings of embarrassed, as many manifestos want their targets to suffer things far worse than embarrassment, so let us say embarrassment is just one of the negative things a manifesto hopes to see in its target.
Here are some synonyms for embarrassed - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/thesaurus/embarrassed I believe as a general rule artistic manifestos are often very focused on causing some of these feelings in their targets.
to make some examples: if we assume that the target of the Communist Manifesto is Capitalism we can say that it is hoped that Capitalism suffers negative consequences, amongst which embarrassment is a relatively minor one.
If we assume that the Surrealist manifesto has a target of the old garde of French art we can say it is hoped that the old garde suffers some embarrassment and fades away, being inconsequential to the world that surrealism has created.
The same operation seems to exist for any manifesto I have ever read, including the manifesto of the current discussion which, surprisingly, is not at all for any of the things it has announced it stands against.
If you do not agree, please provide an example of a single manifesto that says we stand for certain things and the things that are against us are really great and we love them.
>> artistic manifestos are often very focused on causing some of these feelings in their targets.
I notice you have dropped in 'artistic' which is a new criterion. Sloppy. :) Not interested in chatting with bots for now.
artistic manifestos are a subset of manifestos.
As for me, I am not interested in chatting with people with a kink for insulting others as bots.
cringe inducing texts? are you serious? what does that mean?
cringe in the modern vernacular means "behavior, content, or situations that cause acute embarrassment, awkwardness, or secondhand embarrassment"
As a general rule most manifestos have a subtext of how the manifesto writers are brilliant people meant to get rid of the rubbish of the past and fix the current situation in whatever subject the manifesto is focused on. After the time of the text is gone and the manifesto is a piece of the past these manifestos may elicit either the feeling of how spot on they were, secondhand embarrassment, or just hilarity, sometimes even mixes of these feelings if your relation to the movement the manifesto champions is a complicated one.
Thus when Andre Breton writes his actual poetry I might like it, but when he starts writing about what Surrealism will achieve I start thinking "give it a rest, Breton" and looking away at Yeats as someone not quite as embarrassing.
he?
André Robert Breton was a French writer and poet, known as a principal theorist and co-founder of surrealism. His writings include the first Surrealist Manifesto of 1924, in which he defined surrealism as "pure psychic automatism"
Why?
Can't wait for the comments from the CIA shills