Most of this has me rolling my eyes (“cadre of radical hackers”? really?), but this part is interesting:

> The A/I Collective… manually vets all potential users for ideological affinity before granting them access to its infrastructure.

What is the truth behind that? Such behaviour would undermine A/I’s claim they are akin to Gmail if they explicitly are not a neutral ISP. After that, it becomes a question of degrees: what were their specific criteria for access to the platform?

Asking out of genuine curiosity. I wasn’t familiar with this group before today.

▲

Grombobulous 2 hours ago | parent [-]

This is exactly the problem they ran into.

A lot of the state department’s claims of “violent groups” are BS but it also seems like a non-zero number of them are pretty violent organizations.

There’s a big difference between “we have designed our devices to be zero-knowledge but we act swiftly against violent/illegal activity if it’s discovered” versus “we actively endorse the views of our user base.”

▲

fl0id 2 hours ago | parent [-]

for them it basically just means to not platform nazis etc. but then once you have an account, there is no control or anything.

	▲	fastball an hour ago \| parent [-]
		That's exactly the point though: if you are choosing to platform some and not others, and some (many? most?) of the groups you are choosing to platform are violent groups, you very quickly run out of plausible deniability.