Posted by kareiva 1 day ago
I used that to convey the idea that a certain spy agency was a terrorist group (by how they were operating) and were using accounts, with said very accounts visible in many of the instagram threads I was commenting in, being astro turf to sway certain opinions and do psyops on the American people. I got thousands of up votes and engagement.
Safe to say, I was naive, and it was terrifying to have them follow up and send investigators into private and public spaces. I had terror follow me from this time but I'm alive so glad that I wasn't enough of a threat to exterminate. Suppose I can thank either this was entirely made-up, or I was cautious enough after this incident (though I keep making the embarrassing mistake of sharing posts like this on hacker news and getting the occasional "You're crazy" accusation and ad hominem style credibility attacks). Who knows what really happened. I can't dismiss the possibility as 0%.
Edit: Thing is when you have an expert who's job it is to act sane and credible, operating to remain in stealth and hide their behavior, any accusation to call them out as so is met with a rational response to call out the veil-piercing observations as incredulous. And who's going to spy on the spy, would you look to gather evidence and record your interactions, send in a spy tape recorder, etc lol.
>In 2025 we received a request for data from the “Office of the Secretary of War (Intelligence and Security)” (US). Generally if there’s mutual community benefit we’ll find, process and release the data for free. However given this is was the Department of War and no expected community benefit we decided they should pay for the data. I was hesitant even working with them, as I don’t really want to help military, let alone the US - but since our data is public if we didn’t do it someone else probably would. So my reasoning shifted to, may as well extract some funds to pay for SondeHub infrastructure at the very least.
such a seamless transition from moral absolutism to moral relativism ;-)
"You can disapprove of ... from many, many ethical perspectives without going near absolutism."
If not, then why would they go on such a tangent? Do you expect them to list every one of their personal geopolitical stances, regardless of the relevance to the article?
My understanding of that section was that Ukraine were using it to find launch sites in occupied parts of Ukraine - they go on to describe how they helped someone who had been doing the tracking:
[From article]
> We emailed back and forth and provided documentation on how to run the predictor locally.
Edit: my recollection of which parts of Ukraine are occcupied was wrong, leaving me rather confused about who they thought they were helping.