To be explicitly clear, a "neutral infrastructure provider" does not describe A/I so your scenario is hypothetical.

>careful, if you start going after neutral infrastructure providers, that means google, amazon, microsoft, meta, and more will also need to go.

No, because they actively respond to removal request. Open by default, supporting request for removal.

The difference comes in when you are open by default and tell the US to fuck off when they ask you to stop supporting terror groups.

>To be explicitly clear, a "neutral infrastructure provider" does not describe A/I so your scenario is hypothetical.

i am replying specifically to your comments about neutral providers (that's why i quoted the part of your comment that i did)

>No, because they actively respond to removal request.

there is still orders of magnitude more conversations going through the providers i mentioned, related to terrorism/csam/etc., which is simply not reported or not known. right now, meta is facilitating significantly more terrorism than a/i.

in any case, this isn't really about terrorism. they've just overused the child-safety angle lately, and needed to drum up some anti-privacy/anti-encryption using the terrorism card.

> i am replying specifically to your comments about neutral providers

Right, which is not A/I.

> there is still orders of magnitude more conversations going through the providers i mentioned, related to terrorism/csam/etc., which is simply not reported or not known.

So no one knows about these conversations but you know there are orders of magnitude more? Walk me through that.

Even if that were true how would that change anything? They still comply with the US government and their mission statement isn't to empower, protect, support political activists which in practice include terrorist designated organizations.

It's true that "terrorism" and "left wing extremism" is sometimes a boogeyman. Just not this time.

>So no one knows about these conversations but you know there are orders of magnitude more? Walk me through that.

sure. whatsapp is used by literal billions of people. add in a few more billion people through facebook, instagram, gmail, outlook, amazon.

would you like me to walk through the statistics calculations? or can you extrapolate from the billions of users? now make a guess how many people a/i has facilitated. a few thousand? a hundred thousand?

>Even if that were true how would that change anything? They still comply with the US government and their mission statement isn't to empower, protect, support political extremists.

because it demonstrates that the goal is not to curtail terrorism.

>would you like me to walk through the statistics calculations?

yes

okay, great. we can do this together.

lets start with this: how many terrorists do you think a/i has helped?

Wait, is this the right analysis? WhatsApp doesn't enter into any kind of agreement with organizations using it about their political alignment or objectives. The allegation (I have no idea how valid it is) is that A/I does.

upthread, nonethewiser said "They aren't some neutral infrastructure provider. __And even if they were that doesn't mean the US shouldn't sanction them for supporting terrorism.__"

emphasis mine. my assertion is that whatsapp, a neutral provider, facilitates more terrorists than a/i. i.e., the US should consider sanctioning them, if we are to follow nonethewiser's recommendation.

(to be clear, i'm on the pro-privacy, pro-encryption side, and don't actually think the US should be sanctioning whatsapp)

Right, I get that. I'm also not taking a position on this (in particular, the PKK seems like a Europe problem, not a US problem, and if Europe doesn't care I don't see why we should.)

But the analysis isn't based on "which service enables more terrorists". By that logic, forget WhatsApp, forget Signal; Google Mail probably runs the table in absolute numbers. But all three of those services assist terrorists without any deliberation or really even actual knowledge on the part of the providers.

The claim is that A/I can't say the same thing.

from this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49479169 on, i was talking about the neutral providers and the claim that neutral providers should also be subject to sanctions.

>without any deliberation or really even actual knowledge on the part of the providers.

i think we agree that this is an implicit requirement of being considered a neutral provider.

so, to claim neutral providers should be subject to sanctions implies that a provider who does not know or purposefully facilitate terrorists should still be subject to sanctions (gmail, whatsapp, signal, amazon, etc.)

then we got sidetracked by me being asked how can i possibly know that meta/google/etc. facilitate more terrorists than a/i. which i, and seemingly you, agree is a pretty obvious answer given the scale of the organizations. and i was asked to "walk them through that".

Find a fricking PKK link in noblogs that hasn't been taken down, government shill.

How is your precious Nvidia PAC going?

Could you elaborate? What do you find interesting? Is 12 min less than 15 min? What is interesting? What is a sealion? What is the CIA Sabotage Manual? Is your account older than 15 min?

and another

can dang and tomhow please just ban 5 hour old accounts from commenting in politics threads, it's exhausting

All the providers you mention here work with the US government in situations where their platforms are being used by terrorist organizations. It sounds like the a/i folks are specifically offering free services to a militant group, so that's why they're being sanctioned. I don't think your argument flies.

if the argument is harm reduction and reducing the overall incidence of terrorism, my argument flies.

Removing all the oxygen from our atmosphere would kill 100% of terrorists, that's a good strategy too right?

indeed, that would be a very effective way to reduce terrorism to 0.

My point is, most people are looking for strategies that actually make sense. Shutting down Google to stop terrorism, even when Google is already cooperating with the US government, makes no sense.

And if the terrorist group that provides the impetus for the sanction is practically nonexistent, it's entirely sensical?

They aren't specifically supporting terrorism, and in fact are cooperating with the US to stop terrorist groups. This isn't an ends justifies the means situation, as I was trying to illustrate with the oxygen/atmosphere metaphor.

Provide working noblog links to PKK or GTFO.

> (has anyone checked who is providing terrorists with electricity?)

Or for that matter, where they get their air?! Oh gosh golly darn, gee, if Earth is providing air to those commie bastards…

I may not agree with their political views, but to say that the tool is the problem is equivalent to saying guns kill people instead of people that use guns. The problem isn’t the tool or their point of view, or then even speaking about it - the problem comes from humans not controlling themselves. Any actor taking any adverse or malicious action inspired by words or ideas isn’t the fault of the ideator or author, but of the actor failing in self control.

Gotta reign this insanity in.

i would agree there as long as the providers are actually neutral they should be free from culpability. we shouldn't encourage providers to restrict who they serve because of potential liability, that's giving them way to much power.

Isn't forcing a provider to do business with everyone who asks just as bad? You're saying noblogs should be compelled to host nazi blogs. (Actual Nazis, not a euphemism. People who want Jews to be gassed.) You're also saying wedding cake bakers should be compelled to bake cakes for gay weddings.

A service can't be refused for reasons like religion or race, a power company cannot refuse to serve a customer because they're black or Muslim. If a company is acting as a platform or provider they should serve customers regardless of their views and this should give them protection for being liable for their customers actions.

Do you think providers should be allowed to refuse service because they don't like certain customers views?

It's a good question. If someone comes on my forum and posts "I strongly believe that all Jews should be immediately gassed" am I allowed to ban him or am I obligated to provide equal service?

I think this comes down to whether you're a platform or a publisher, if you're a provider you're not responsible for what your usera do with your service, if you only allow selective use then you're implicitly endorsing whatever the users you allow do.

except they aren't neutral, which is the whole point

did you read the part where nonethewiser said "And even if they were [neutral] that doesn't mean the US shouldn't sanction them for supporting terrorism."?

the double-negative might be confusing, so we can reword it to: "And even if they were neutral, the US should sanction them for supporting terrorism"

that's the part i quoted and my comment is about.