Comment by someonebaggy
3 days ago
A few weeks ago they made some Italian group into sanctioned terrorists because, get this, they hosted email and blogs without being rich.
3 days ago
A few weeks ago they made some Italian group into sanctioned terrorists because, get this, they hosted email and blogs without being rich.
Discussions[0]:
US sanctions Italian hosting provider Autistici Inventati
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49511568 (Thanks Chris, I appreciate you writing these comments and have a nice day!)
> they hosted email and blogs without being rich
Worse, without sharing the data with feds!
Despite being in a completely different country and complying with all court orders in that country! This is how far the USA's tentacles reach.
Which explain why Cloudflare are allowed to offer their services to much more unsavoury entities
Writing disingenuous comments like this only makes people pay less attention to your points when it matters.
The stated reason for the "terrorist" title was not them being not-rich. It was facilitating a platform which hosted organizations which behave on the extreme end - because it's privacy centered and those elements obviously want that.
If would be a valid discussion point wherever that justifies setting the whole platform on fire, but the way you're making the point ultimately sabotages your message.
The problem there is twofold.
The first and most evident is that the reason is false. That hosting provider makes it clear in its ToS that extremist groups aren't allowed, and when one is detected they actively ban those accounts. They've show documental proof of both.
The second is that it violates the first amendment of the US's own constitution, which uses universal language, not discriminating between citizens and non-citizens, nor between inside and outside US territories, nor between nationals and foreigners. So any federal US action trying to prevent people anywhere from saying anything they want between themselves, and with people in the US, is, in principle at least, out of bounds.
I dont disagree with you about this being unreasonable and unwarranted, but the US constitution quite explicitly does not apply to non-citizens outside of the United States.
>We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Although more generally I do believe even without the preamble it would still be implied that the US government does not have jurisdiction over the entire planet. We would never be able to invade a foreign country if their government was entitled to third-amendment and fourth-amendment rights.
1 reply →
I'll push back against this interpretation since no matter what any country's constitution says, no national constitution can ever really apply to foreign nationals on foreign soil doing their own thing (diplomatic missions being a notable, narrow carve-out for that).
If you take this universalist interpretation, that would mean it's fine for US citizens to truck guns into Canada (which they can't, but they still occasionally do, largely for much more boring reasons than believing there's a constitutional justification) with no restrictions because the implication is that the US constitution supersedes other laws in other countries.
It is, however, against the spirit of the document, and it's arguably an abuse of the existing framework of sanctioning organizations which take part in terrorist efforts. It's another case of the US legal system falling short because of an assumption of good faith by those in power.
6 replies →
The STATED reason can be anything they like and is meaningless, which is why I told the actual reason instead.
[flagged]
[flagged]
3 replies →
They made some Italian group into sanctioned terrorists because, get this, they specifically sought out and provided digital servers to terrorist organizations that aligned with their ideals. You seem to be leaving out that they did not generally host services for the general public, that they specifically only hosted services for organization they politically agree with after a thorough vetting process, AND those groups happened to be terrorist groups.
False, and illegal slander in Italy.
This is false. They sought out activists fighting fascism in Italy, and then provided hosting service to other likeminded freedom fighters.
Anyone can be a terrorist if “different opinion than the President of the United States” is all it takes to be labeled a “terrorist.” The label has lost all meaning.