> A/I was born over 20 years ago to provide internet support (through website hosting, e-mail accounts, mailing lists, chat, blogs, and much more) to activists and collectives coming from the world of grassroot and social movements.
they are a group of people providing services to activists. services include email, web hosting, chat, and other anonymity services. (see https://www.inventati.org/services/)
From it:
> We support individuals, collectives, communities and groups whose political and social activities fit within this worldview and who share with us some fundamental principles: anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-militarism
I suspect they have some "not mainstream" political views; although I think understanding what these views are requires more in-depth reading of the blogs that they host.
I would say they are pretty "mainstream" (or very widespread) in some territories. I have seen bartenders wearing those 'anti-' terms on their t-shirts at work.
Good?
That will depend on what the bearers will want to mean with it, as usual.
We'd need to dig much deeper to understand what their views are.
FWIW: I consider extreme leftists just as dangerous as the extreme right.
How much more specific can you get?
Yeah we should ban any non-mainstream political views and designate them as terrorist
> The A/I Collective exclusively offers its tools and services to radical left-wing actors and manually vets all potential users for ideological affinity before granting them access to its infrastructure.
I don't see anything wrong with that. They make 0 money from this. It's 100% run by volunteers. They don't support any orgs that could afford to do it themselves.
It's like if a group of you and your friends got together and gave tech support to any orgs that care about something you're passionate about (e.g. ending FPTP voting)
Did I say there was something wrong with that? No. Let me repeat what I said: "In this case the US State Department is accurately reciting what this organization says about itself openly". Do you disagree with this statement?
The State Department's words are not A/I's.
Okay, so the chamber of commerce is a radical organisation, got it.
If opposition to fascism isn't centrism then what is?
An Oregon leftist and antifa ideologue seeking to stop Immigration and Customs Enforcement was arrested on Feb. 4 over a manifesto and weapons procurement plan detailing his desire to stalk federal agents at the Portland ICE facility to their homes and kill them. - https://www.ngocomment.com/p/leftist-extremist-arrested-over...
33 anti-Israel protesters get slap on the wrist for causing $1M in damage to U. of Washington science building - https://nypost.com/2026/03/04/us-news/33-anti-israel-protest...
A German interior minister and author for "Das Antifa Magazin" said asylum seekers should have the right to vote after 6 months on German soil, and called for mass censorship - https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/politik-inland/auslaender...
Stabbing black conservatives - https://thepostmillennial.com/andy-ngo-reports-no-prison-tim...
Mobs physically attacking political candidates - https://www.lefigaro.fr/faits-divers/bordeaux-un-candidat-rn...
Making people who condemn arson unemployable - https://reason.com/2021/06/15/daniel-elder-cancel-culture-ch...
On the night of July 4, 2025, 11 members of a North Texas Antifa cell carried out a coordinated attack on the Prairieland Detention Center. Earlier that day, they had conducted reconnaissance (including reporting on security of the facility), and had assembled a cache of dozens of firearms. The group planned the attack ahead of time, including a “gear check” where the leader discussed bringing rifles and ominously “not getting arrested.” They dressed in black uniforms and brought 11 firearms, body armor, and military-grade first aid kits (including tourniquets for gunshot wounds). They disabled CCTV cameras at the facility, and threw fireworks and explosives to flush the officers out for a planned massacre. When officers called 911, Lt. Thomas Gross responded. Bodycam footage shows one of the attackers yelling “get to the rifles!” as the group opened fire. Gross was shot once in the neck, with the bullet exiting through his back, but survived and continued to fight back. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Prairieland_ICE_detention...
Beating leftists with clubs for the crime of carrying the US flag on US soil - https://www.newsweek.com/antifa-violence-portland-bernie-san... (The article comes with a nice photo! Can you spot any antifa in that photo, or will you continue to play dumb?)
I can keep going. If you're not convinced I can make a new post with 10x as many incidents. But it is true that there's no central antifa office with paperwork listing all their members. Nor is there one for white nationalists, but I don't see anyone arguing that doesn't exist.
I guess there's just no way to tell! They could belong to any group! Except antifa, of course, because antifa is not a group. It's just an idea. With adherents. That form groups and execute actions based on that idea.
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/antifa-violence-portland-bernie-san...
Supposing it was not a false flag, then no, it would not mean MAGA as a whole are serial killers, but it's a gamble if the killings would be attributed to MAGA as a whole. E.g. wikipedia immediately attributes the Charlottesville car attack to white supremacists [1], but doesn't attribute the Prairieland ICE detention center attack to any group [2], nor the Tacoma attack [3], despite perpetrators being associated with BLM, or running explicitly anarchist and Antifa clubs and social media accounts.
This (including the double standard) is how all groups are treated. E.g. when the media says liberals or conservatives banned some books [4], it doesn't mean there must be a central organization of liberals/conservatives, or that liberals/conservatives on average are censorious or pro-free-speech, as any group, loose or tight-knit, official or informal, has internal differences. That's why the news will say "environmentalists glued their hands to the street" or "BLM activists toppled a statue", and not "some individuals did something, but those actions don't represent everyone that shares the beliefs that motivated them".
In fact, this is how you yourself treat groups. Your words: Trump ran as a republican because he thought it would be easier to sway republicans to vote for him because they're sheeple - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49466394
So basically this commenter is projecting, because that is all that far right people do - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49465924
See? No "actually the far right doesn't exist, if I did a Nazi salute and said trans rights, would that make the far right pro-LGBT?", no "they voted for republicans but are they republicans?", no "is the far right in the room with us now?" - you're able to talk about groups just fine! And you can define those groups based on behavior and espoused beliefs!
So since I've been more than kind and seriously answered your question, and re-explained human group categorization that you demonstrably already understood, do me the courtesy of answering my question as well: Why is pretending not to understand basic concepts such a common tactic for the left? Or if you won't speculate for the left as a whole, I'll be happy hearing why you did it. Is it just that you have no better arguments, so you just try to waste time instead, and hope that your opponent, forced to re-define all of language on the spot, will bungle something, and you hope the audience will misinterpret that bumbling as your victory?
[1] The Charlottesville car attack was a white supremacist terrorist attack perpetrated on August 12, 2017, when James Alex Fields Jr. deliberately drove his car into a crowd of people - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlottesville_car_attack
[2] On the evening of July 4, 2025, a civil disturbance and shooting occurred at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas, United States, during a protest - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Prairieland_ICE_detention...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Tacoma_immigration_detent...
[4] https://abcnews.com/US/conservative-liberal-book-bans-differ...
Opposition to fascism isn't centrism when fascism is broadly defined to include centrist ideas and the opposition is expressed as firebombing Tesla dealerships.
> Go fuck yourself, gaslighting piece of shit.
This is a completely unacceptable style of commenting on HN, no matter who or what you're replying to. We've asked you before to observe the guidelines. Please take a moment to read them again and make an effort to observe them, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. If you can't make your point without being abusive, you probably don't have a good point. We have to ban accounts that continue commenting like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
How could you possibly equate those?
Declaring that the State Department's language is "accurately reciting" is equating.
Now you are just imagining the word "terrorism" into a sentence that does not include the word "terrorism". As a reminder, here is the sentence we are discussing: "The A/I Collective exclusively offers its tools and services to radical left-wing actors and manually vets all potential users for ideological affinity before granting them access to its infrastructure."
Gaslighting again. The quote was "anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-sexism". See how you "accidentally" forgot to mention "anti-fascism" in there? This organization is actively supporting Antifa. Antifa is a prototypical example of what people mean when they talk about "radical left".
It provides email accounts, mailing lists, blogs, websites, chat and VPN access.
And the platform hasn't done any killing. They merely provide email etc. Are we going to sanction road builders too because a murderer has driven on their road since 1984?
https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/11/12/donald-trump-ahmed-al...
"Al-Sharaa, who until recently was known by his alias "al-Julani," was a longtime jihadist who was part of the ranks of organizations associated with al-Qaida and ISIS, and even orchestrated an attack against Israel – milestones that led to his designation as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" by the US, with a reward of approximately $10 million for information leading to his capture. President Trump decided to lift the sanctions on al-Sharaa, who has transformed into a political leader following the collapse of the Assad regime in December, when he assumed Syria's presidency as the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham."
You should never take the "terrorist" label at face value.
The US funded the Mujaheddin in the 80s in Afghanistan. Their first moves upon receiving the weapons was to throw grenades through the windows if Girls' schools.
They began as the "useful lackey", and the US lost control of the Wahabist movement that was amplified to fight Communism. Then they were "freedom fighters" to the religious extremists, and "terrorists" to fight a war against.
In your own example, Al-Sharaa(a product of weaponizing Wahhabism) did actual terrorism, and then was able to squeeze back into the "useful lackey" position, like many "terrorist"s have before him.
I see people posting links to x.com which he uses to promote those views as well as platform other hate groups calling for violence and genocide against immigrants, trans people, etc.
Do acts gain moral validity under color of law alone?
You see it everywhere.
Meanwhile the SDF, the armed wing of the PYD, follows the same ideology as the PKK and was trained in military tactics by the PKK, and was among our chief allies against ISIS. They fought alongside US soldiers and we even supplied them with small arms.
The history of the PKK is complicated and the state they struggle against has a long history of genocide and (more recently) outright dictatorship. The relation of these countries to the PKK isn't ultimately determined by the PKK's history, morality, ideology, or even the use of terrorist tactics per se.
If you're curious about the bigger picture, there's actually an organized movement whose aim is to "de-list the PKK" as a terrorist organization, and that's probably a good place to start: https://www.peaceinkurdistancampaign.com/activities/delist-t...
There are also some books and some academic papers on the history of the PKK and their ideology. Those written by independent academics are generally neither fully condemnatory nor exculpatory towards the PKK, but give a clear sense of how the term "terrorism" and its use is at least contestable, geopolitical, etc. And any familiarity at all with the history of the conflict makes it clear that the Turkish government is likewise guilty of state terror conducted against Kurdish civilian populations in Turkey for generations now.
> We support individuals, collectives, communities and groups whose political and social activities fit within this worldview and who share with us some fundamental principles: anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-militarism
They don't receive any money for this. It's 100% volunteer services.
That’s a very different situation compared to the standard “sign up with your email here”. The provider is responsible because they picked their clients, rather than their clients picking them.
If the bartender decides as a rule "first of all, if they seem uncertain on their legs it is already a no", again that is just a codification of the former.
Nobody in the world DOES NOT do this. If an advertiser takes down their ads from a website because that website is spreading white supremacy then they are doing just the same. As they should.
Also where do they claim they are "just an infrastructure provider"? They clearly say throughout that they provide services for anti-racist/anti-sexist/etc orgs that can't afford to do it themselves.
They do not make a profit. They are not a company. They are literally a group of friends helping orgs out.
EDIT: a better simile would be if guns were giving away for free. You can see how that could be construed as increasing the responsibility of the provider if a receiver then does something illegal with it
I'll repeat a few of similes I used, with this latest: somebody giving guns away for free would be /less/ responsible if he screened the receivers first; somebody serving drinks would be /less/ responsible if he checked the costumers first; somebody in possess of a hammer would be /less/ responsible if he lent it to known vetted people instead of just anyone...
I get it that some see that cases for the opposite exist, but I would need a strong example because those provided made me strengthen the view I advanced instead of seeing an acquired responsibility on those who select their customers.
If selling the weapons is "ok" because business must be allowed because the motive is purely selfish (I just want to make a living for myself and my family), and giving away weapons is "suspect" because "you clearly have an ulterior motive", if just means that we live in a world where selfishness is the norm being altruists is suspect.
I think this is the core divide of our society, much more useful than the obsolete "left" and "right" divide
No, with these limited elements. The filter may just be "of course I will not provide my (free) service to people that may use it in what I call a repugnant way".
When you know Harry is a rogue CEO, say a misinformation spreader or the issuer of unethical products, and you refuse to work for it, to provide it your services: does that make you an "activist"? Many people will call it "just the normal right thing to do". This is similar to people here calling certain positions "centrist" or "extremist" - and that entirely depends on how those positions are interpreted beyond their dumb (not telling) label, and on the dumb labels over said labels.
It’s absolutely not a normal thing to do for entities that want to use the “we are just infrastructure, our users are responsible for their actions” excuse.
In fact, such entities (e.g. power grid, telecom) are often legally prohibited from choosing their clients, and in exchange aren’t held responsible for what their clients do with their services.
So if you had a hammer in your yard, and somebody took it and misused it, you would not be responsible, but if you gave it to your neighbour and he used it to crush a skull, you the owner of the hammer would be responsible? It is clearly at least the opposite. Abstract from the "paid service", but see that.
The rule you propose (filtering would create responsibility) makes no sense. Try to show why it would be so, maybe.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/desi...
It follows that those hosting them are chased
Anarchism is a philosophy. Antifa is an actual terrorist network.
I oppose fascism.
That does not magically infuse into my brain mysterious connections to groups of people, nor instantaneous knowledge and mastery of tactics from nazi groups...
That would be actually kind of cool, but no, sorry to disappoint you.
It also says their manifesto was written in 2002.
You can use the Wayback machine to see older versions.
If you knew people who actually did actions, they'd be right in not telling you about their actions until they really really trusted you to defend them with your life. Loose lips sink ships when you're going against a government.
What is this?