I appreciate your criticism. And I knew this would come up. But didn’t want to address it in my initial comment. I lose focus enough as it is.

But one reason documentation of these events is so important is the truth that “one day, everyone will have always been against this”. We are reaching that point of history and no one has been made to answer for the crimes. These outlets want you to believe they have always been covering this fairly. That is why they covered everything, buried the leads, and filled their coverage with justification and doubt for the crimes of Israel.

While it’s true the guardian covered this at the time, they did so in a very “but Hamas” and “Israel denies” manner that was very much manufacturing consent for the genocide at the time. It was more meant to create a defensive and doubt inducing coverage of the reports than it was to expose the crimes.

The Washington Post, the new York times, and the Guardian have been doing this type of coverage since the genocide began.

It’s why the article you linked is very focused on what became the fake separation of Microsoft from Israel later. Microsoft made a big show of “cutting of access to unit 8200” in late 2025. Which, was essentially just Microsoft handing over its cloud infrastructure to Israel and allowing it to be run independently from Microsoft infrastructure. Continuing to provide everything they needed; while introducing a false separation that continues to this day.

Read the guardian article for yourself. It is still covered with “activist say” and “some are accusing” and leaving the conclusion up to the reader. When that is not the job of investigative reporting or a news outlet. The job is to provide the statements and INVESTIGATE THEIR VALIDITY. And during the genocide and to this day. News outlets are incapable of calling a spade a spade when it comes to Israel. And more and more so, as Israel becomes unpopular, the companies and American politicians that supported and funded this genocide, will use this type of “we reported” defense to let them off the hook for what they justified at the time. We can’t let that happen.

Hamas is a militant group but is also the governing entity of Gaza. They are treated the same through Western media with no distinction between civilians or militants. It would be like labeling American firefighters as the same as the American pilots that bombed the girls school in Iran.

And it’s even worse than just that. They specifically attack “Hamas members” in their homes. They don’t even hide the reasons why. They openly will say it is to “incentivize” others to not “be Hamas” by targeting their family.

As someone that has worked at Microsoft and heard from first hand the people that had access to these systems I can say that this is not at all a “failure of AI”. That is mostly an excuse for what is actually being done.

The AI portions of these systems are primarily about dealing with large amounts of data collection to form a narrative an reasoning that would otherwise have no basis in reality. Gaza, even before the Palestinian Genocide, had the most surveillance on the planet. The AI is primarily used to disconnect humans from the doubt in the decisions they are making. The AI doesn’t have to function for accuracy when it’s goal is not accuracy. The goal is to ensure those carrying out the strikes believe in its accuracy. That their is enough for them to believe they are “making the best hard decision”. It is the only way to ensure a state like Israel maintains it genocidal goals.

The comparison of this would be the industrialization of murder that was the Holocaust. The Nazis did not change to gas chambers as a means of “efficiency”. The mass slaughter of innocent people was creating doubt and unrest in those carrying out the slaughter. You can believe the worst white supremacist hate and enjoy all the propaganda that justifies your actions. But, at a certain point, that is no longer enough. The direct participantion in mass suffering will break anyone. Even if it’s not in understanding their actions as wrong. But making them incapable of being functional enough to continue acting as a tool for mass murder.

The Israeli soldier that committed suicide after describing their bulldozing over dead bodies for months. That type of thing. But, if that direct level of participation is abstracted by “this very smart system says these deaths are justified” and the soldier is only pressing a button on an Xbox controller. Well, you’ve manufactured a society that is capable of a genocide. And proudly so.

This type of maintenance on the Israeli population itself is something that is rarely talked about. But, I think it can be seen as a “Israelis are actually victims”. So, I want to be clear that’s not what I’m trying to say. But, I am interested in understanding how a society and a state can reach such a level of hubris, such unapologetic rejoice in their crimes; so we can stop it.

I don’t think it’s helpful to say “they are just evil”. It is true. The Nazis were fucking evil. The IDF are fucking evil. But, how does that occur and become sustainable? I think people stop and just attribute it to a flaw in some inherent human trait of a people. Which, ironically, is often the justification used by those commiting genocide themselves.

The only way to recover from and prevent these things is to understand the structures that maintain them in the first place. And, that, is what AI is primarily being used for in warfare and in genocide. It is a means of maintaining it. It’s why when Microsoft says it’s “cutoff Israel from xyz” they are doing this to save face in the public eye. To attempt to separate their image from the direct systems that press the button. But, are still maintaining the structures that allow, justify, and maintain the structures that allow that button to exist and keep the IDF soldier pressing it.

Sorry, rant. But I never imagined in my college years working on programming problems that I’d end up at a company so connected to and so at fault for carrying out the mass slaughter of innocents halfway around the world. It does something to you.

including AI-based systems built to identify large numbers of potential low-ranking Hamas targets, who were then bombed in their homes at night

The guardian finally talking about something 972 mag covered back in January 2025.

It’s not secret! It’s Google and Microsoft and many other AI companies testing their AI systems on Gaza. It’s a huge part of the incentives of the genocide. Write the companies fucking names you fucking cowards.

https://www.972mag.com/microsoft-azure-openai-israeli-army-cloud/

I was fired from Microsoft in July speaking out against these systems. Not personally in the video. But we’ve know this shit with constant whistleblowers speaking out since 2024. It’s not true until an Israeli soldier feels sad about it later I guess.

https://youtu.be/9jY5rbSfh_Y

The fact that Microsoft and Google are not mentioned in this article is doing the work to wash the blood off the hands of American corporations. It’s not a fucking secret system. We know exactly what it is and we know exactly who profited from the mass murder of children. Fuck you.

These sanctions are essentially useless, right? Like, this is all entirely around influencing the results of the upcoming elections in Israel and will be gone soon after.

I wish I wasn’t such a fucking pessimistic person. But when the US isn’t even talking shit about the sanctions, you know it’s not anything of material value.

The symbolism here is “hey, can you elect a new prime minister so we can do damage control to your image and try to get the ball rolling again? Netanyahu is not recoverable in the eyes of the West and we’ve been blaming him and him alone for your genocidal state for awhile. It’s time.”

This is why I’ve been trained to just come to the comments and never read the article.

Also, it’s why I hate the “must have the same title as article” rule most subs have. I understand why it exists. But, it’s actual outcome just means the bias of a title (or the click bait of) is decided by some media outlet. A lot of the time I’d rather have the Lemmy community bias or click bait. At least we could directly influence it.

Cool. North Korea should not be cut off from the rest of the world for the crime of resisting a genocide from first Japan and then America. It didn’t have to be Russia. And it should have been with South Korea. A normalization with their southern neighbors would have helped to reduce the Norths reliance on its relationship with Russia. Instead it’s highly dependent on a state directly engaging in a war of aggression. But I guess South Korea is only extremely dependent on the other country currently engaged in their own war of aggression in Iran.

Both parts of Korea split between dependence on two awful states in decline. Arguably the North is getting the better deal. At least their economy is growing and they aren’t facing massive population crisis.

Hopefully we get Cuba some connections next. As the world cuts off its relationships with a militarily and trade hostile America hopefully we can get some improvements to the material conditions of the people in North Korea and Cuba. The American embargos and trade restrictions have choked the people of these countries for nearly a century.

I’m defining the distinction of private and personal property as I (and leftist in general) use them. If you’re looking for an original written distinction, it’s French philosopher Pierre Joseph Proudhon in 1840. Expanded on, and more scientifically written about, by Karl Marx.

Just as you’d use a word like “work” in your common language to mean one thing; and the same word “work” meaning a very specific (and different) thing in a Physics class.

I’d just say. The distinction is not on owner alone. The distinction is primarily on its use. How a commodity is used by its owner. Though the ownership of and specific use creates a class distinction between those that labor and own personal property; and those that own capital and own private property.

We’re entering the realm of where I’d have to use more terms in a similar means as one world use “work” to define a force over a distance in physics. That’s not very helpful or possible in a comment thread. Unfortunately, I have to recommend a video essay or a book to help you understand more.

We’re talking about economic principles, and, unfortunately, it’s difficult to avoid using the language of that field requiring a non Liberal background of it.

I can recommend resources if you want. But I’m not gonna just paste links you won’t ever click if you’re not interested.

I think you’re missing this context for my comment.

Personal Property is items meant for individual use and consumption that do not generate passive income. Your everyday goods such as clothes, phone, car, etc. They belong to you because you personally use them for their intended purpose.

Private property refers to assets or “capital”. Something that is owned by individuals or corporations to generate a profit. Their ownership is not intended for personal use beyond the goal of obtaining capital from them. Factories, rentals, etc. The owner makes money from the labor or payments of others because of their ownership of that private property.

The art dealer may enjoy looking at the art and owning it. But, that is not the primary purpose of the ownership of that property. The art dealer owns art to extract a profit from it through sale.

I agree with you. The inheritance of and ownership of personal property is definitely decreasing. But this is not what I am discussing. I’m referring to the inheritance of private property. Private property inheritance is becoming much more concentrated into the ruling capitalist class.

And these things are connected too. The concentration of private property is becoming so bad that a lot of people don’t even own their phone these days. It’s private property owned by capital that is renting it to extract more profit than they would from selling it to them. The phone that was once sold as private property to an individual who purchases it as personal property; that phone is now a part of a contract that treats the phone as a rent to be extracted and the private property returned to the capitalist for further private property profit after.

You touched on, without realizing it I think, a reason why many people fall for the propaganda against socialism. They get worried when they hear socialist want to “abolish private property”. But our society doesn’t make this distinction. It’s on purpose. The belief that the ownership of private property is something that the average person has or can obtain. The average person does not own any private property and never will.

I agree. Though sometimes it’s late night and you gotta rant out a frustration and write a comment that is more for your own understanding of the idea than the person that responded to you. Lol.

But I agree. I’m much more “gentle” in person. Ranting about frustration with private property and inheritance with a person that identifies with them through a person experience and idea (toothbrush) is not very helpful in educating someone. Though it does help connect with a random online person that understands already.

Thanks. Your reply was better than my own. I’m cranky tonight. It’s hard to describe to people that inheritance with ownership are just a means of protecting ruling class control of the possession and sale of art that they did nothing to create. People see its possession not as what it really is, that being capital, but as something like their toothbrush, or a quilt their grandma made.

I think the idea of inheritance and private property is hard for people to imagine a world without.

We are talking about the child of the child of the child of the original art DEALER that is well off financially to pay millions in legal fees to sue an entire state for a piece of art that they have less connection to than the children of the artist that actually created it.

The value of “ownership” takes priority over the value of “creating”. And far above the collective ownership of all of the victims of the Nazis. That is who should be paid back. Not some single rich child of one of the victims.

Along with the fact that the only reason that we are talking about this is because the people trying to get the art back are already extremely wealthy and privileged.

There are plenty of children of children of children of Holocaust victims that never got any reparations. I’m not going to pretend some great justice is being done because some rich person was able to track down art they can use for their own profit.

Not to be all “Indiana Jones” and shit. But I feel like the idea of inheritance is really fucking dumb sometimes. Like, obviously it shouldn’t be in Argentina (really no one should be). But, can we put this shit in a museum somewhere that is relevant to it’s history? Like, reimburse them if you want. But, it’s silly to me that the family of the son of the original art DEALER (not the artist) gets a say of what to do with any of this. Take it from Argentina, make Germany reimburse the family, but keep the art for history. Not for some private collection that will probably get sold privately to some Nazi anyway.

Edit: It’s just a currently rich family using their already existing wealth to recover an art collection that they want to claim. This belongs in a Holocaust museum. Fuck off. Go sue Germany for a settlement if you want. I’m all for that.

The prisoners dilemma is not real life mate. You’re trying to simplify something down to a thought experiment - you look silly. The prisoners dilemma is a puzzle with very specific restrictions and rules. It’s designed to make you THINK. It’s not designed to be a guide for real life.

But, I’ll steelman you. Let’s say it IS the prisoners dilemma. Exactly the same. Remove all obvious other variables that come from real life and simplify it down to just that. What are you trying to conclude? Are you really trying to form your moral principles from a thought experiment? I really hope not. You might want to look for a better moral compass to judge others by.

You sound ridiculous.

It’s amazing how similar your response is to another response I got. I’m not gonna continue another thread. Go read my comment history if you want a response.

You are aware, that “European liberals” are something entirely different compared to what the US perceives as “liberal”?

Yes, I’m using the word in the same way you are referring to. But you’re referring to the economic part of it. I’m referring to “liberal democracy” and the focus on process over outcome. You can’t understand “liberalism” outside of a class based understanding of its role in bourgeoise democracy.

Europe isn’t a country. And Greenland isn’t even an official member of the EU, it’s a territory of Denmark, under Danish jurisdiction.

Yes, which is why I referred to it as such. Did you miss the part where I referred to it as a territory? I’m not sure what point you’re arguing here. I definitely refer to “Europe and the EU” interchangeably sometimes. That’s my mistake if that wasn’t clear. But when talking about foreign policy that is how these relationships happen.

You are, however, doing exactly what I am critizing. Pointing to “tied hands” in the face of a nation that is violating the sovereignty of a people and their land. THAT is my criticism. It’s literally with the systems of liberal democracy that are useless in fighting the creep of fascism.

You’re pointing to the “rules” that European nations are limited by l that prevent them from working to an outcome in order to preserve their process.

I’m talking of understanding how fascism exploits this. It’s why one may feel “safe” in the systems of liberal democracy. They are still functioning. But I would hope you’re able to realize that those systems are the very things that allow Fascism to creep and take control. It’s why it’s hard to notice “the line” in which liberal democracy becomes “Fascism”. Fascist exploit the very reasons you gave for not taking action. With a false hope that a future act of the system will stop it. (You’re reference to 2027 policy that will stop it)

It won’t. It will at best delay to make you believe the system is working to defend you. It defends the interest of class hierarchy. It doesn’t defend the misconception of democracy that “liberals” believe in.

The reports on land seizure are not inaccurate. They are preparing a normalization. The technicality of “delay” or “process” are the very way that they become reality.

I can’t say it better than this explanation that I constantly keep in mind. It’s worth a listen for 10 minutes even if you disagree with what I’ve said.

https://youtu.be/0YFdwfNh5vs

It’s less about Greenland having a spine and it’s Allie’s in Europe not having a spine. If European nations would stand beside Greenland and offer support and troops America would likely back off. But Greenland should be expected to fight this on their own? I don’t think so.

Europe not making a massive deal over this will allow the creep of American empire to control and occupy Europe more than it already does. This is a massive L for Europe and not just Greenland.

Finally. We finally get to hear the “we can’t do anything” reasons from the European liberals that those of us on the left have been critizing internally in America with American liberals. It’s amazing how similar these arguments for inaction are. “Follow the rules while they violate them” is not going to stop American fascism.

It’s funny because the European liberals really loved to grandstand on their superior democracy against America and the failures of American liberalism in the face of fascism. But, really, the European liberals have significantly more in common with American liberals than they’d like to admit. They will roll over and ask for “just one more Injunction” and ultimately do nothing to stop it either.

When a foreign actor is violating the territory of a member of the European Union and your response is essentially “not our problem”. You’re opening the door for the same creeping fascism that the American liberals have allowed.

Focus on what you CAN do. If you are just listing of reasons for why nothing can be done you are no different than the useless American democrat party.

You have to stop this at the first step. And Greenland isn’t the one blocking Europe from doing something. America is doing something illegal. Europe either organizes to stop this “small” expansion now. Or you wait and wait until it becomes too big to ignore and too big to actually do anything against.

I think the UK has the right to pull a Trump Venezuela style operation.

Sure. That’s fine. But I think you still misunderstand exactly what is being solved in most of those cases. It’s not about quantity. If it was then all mathematicians would be spending time on filling “gaps”. Mathematicians aren’t focused on filling in gaps as a lot of the time that type of brute force work is not meaningful to the field of mathematics. They are focused on proving (or disproving) axioms that are foundational to the field. AI has not proven or disproven any mathematical axiom.

The biggest proof it’s ever provided was for “Erdos Problem”. Which is essentially just a fun “dot placement optimization problem” that Erdos came up with, was never taken too seriously, and was difficult enough that spending time on it in academics would likely get you laughed at.

It’s formal proof yields almost nothing to the field.

On top of that, it was “solved” by an AI math startup with closed source software. There is literally no confirmation that it was AI solving it organically or if the mathematicians themselves solved it during developing the AI and saw a means of getting headlines and more capital investment.

Please, be more skeptical. I double majored in Math and CS and have worked in the field for over a decade. There are applications for AI that are helpful. But, right now, people are falling for a lot of the hype and lies that are being pushed around to attract capital investment. You’re not an investor, you can be smarter and more skeptical than that.

In a decade we’re going to have a lot of reflection on this time and the lies being told about the usefulness of AI.

We live in a world where one of the most valued companies in the world pretends it’s AI robots are real and not just being remote operated by a human. You think AI startups aren’t giving credit to AI for the work of humans? They all are. Because it gets them investment.

A mostly fun and non helpful math problem gets solved by a human. The math community enjoys it. Laughs a little at the guy who spent too much of his life solving it. And no one outside the community hears about it.

But if you say “AI did it”. You get millions of dollars in investment.

I don’t have evidence a human solved it. But they also don’t have evidence AI solved it either. And all financial incentives right now are in saying “AI did it”. That is why you should be extremely skeptical of all these things you hear about the capability of AI.

No one advocated for violence, the comment you responded to is pointing to the hypocrisy of talking about population reduction when 100 billionares do more damage to the environment and world than millions of people combined.

No one advocated for violence as the solution; or said it should be used as a first step. You still have not addressed my first comments criticism.

You aren’t having a conversation or trying to “make me think”. You’re injecting opinions into comments that were never expressed. Maybe reread this conversation. You’re putting a lot of effort into replies that aren’t responding to what is being said.