Honestly I’m mostly just venting, others already replied, and then we got the inevitable “well okay if it’s that big of a deal you don’t need to tiptoe around it” post in response, but does anyone else have a playbook for dealing with this tactfully but directly?
These are people who are not wreckers, just sort of naive, as far as I can tell, but of course you can’t know for sure. They’ve said shit like “well then where am I supposed to I’m a revolutionary, I’m not afraid of anything” (phrased a tiny bit nicer) in response to being told “hey keep in mind these chats are almost certainly monitored”
its like, hey, obviously people are being cagey because they don’t want to denounce direct action, but also don’t want you to blow up the aboveground org by being needlessly purposefully reckless in communicating about your planned heavily implied crimes. But I don’t even want to explain that head-on because in that response I’d also be endorsing direct action in a semi-public forum, or tiptoeing around it the same way the other responders did. Like I want to say, and would say if we were in person, that this is an aboveground org and that you can probably use this as a network to find likeminded individuals but you’re going to have to build out a little bit of trust by talking to them in DMs or in person and put together a smaller group that’s not directly attached to the org, because we can’t have your grudge blowing up the whole thing.
How hard is it to chat one-on-one and form a smaller more trusted group? Just because you don’t fear repression doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take any precautions jfc
people are way too fucking open about their feelings and internet-brained, feeling like “well if I can’t fedpost in this specific groupchat then where am I supposed to do it???”
I mean fuck maybe they are wreckers. But I feel like its usually marginalized people who are most like this, maybe because of feeling like they have nothing to lose, so I don’t feel like we should just push them away either
I could message them privately but ultimately then 1) I’ve got a target on my back if they are wreckers and 2) I feel like I’m basically whitesplaining to them
Fedposting is actually good and will never be used against you in a court of law
Not going to do it, but one could type up a big fedbait manifesto with all the right keywords and then record the visit from the fbi or ss and show how fedposting leads to scrutiny and that the ss really does have no sense of humor and no chill, and that the threshold for getting the 'ol thumbs in cheap suits interview is quite low.
You could try convincing them to read Bandit Country about the IR during the troubles phase of the anlgo-irish war. A constant theme in the book is that people who fedposted were killed or imprisoned along with their entire cell and sometimes bystanders, and the cells that survived never talked to anyone outside the cell about operational matters. No friends, not family, not even other cell members unless they were specifically doing cool shit. If you talked you were neutralized, and that was with 30 year old signals intel technology. Even today most security services rely on snitches, informants, and sloppy talk to take people down.
it’s not
fedposting, more low level crimes but most of the same principles applyDidn’t Second Thought get visited by the feds? Maybe not the best example since it makes it seem kind of benign in a way, but at least highlights that feds are watching for anything seemingly significant. OpSec is important, etc.
Yeah. It’s just like, how do I even have that conversation when this is all happening in a semi-public setting where I don’t want to implicate myself or others. In person it’d be awkward but I know what I’d say
Wait what did ST do to get the feds at their door?
Oh yeah, he made a video about the CIA being a terrorist org, using its public historical info, according to him
Ha! I imagine he had to take it down?
Yeah, no, he, uh, still has it on… he said something about it on “the Deprogram” podcast
Well I think I understand why they knocked on his door after watching that video.
The feds called it “anti american activity”.
I’d gently but firmly state that discussion of crimes should be kept offline and out official meetings. I’d make this statement “to the room” as it were.
OpSec is important even for perfectly legal antifascist organizing. Feds are not the only infiltrators to be cautious of. There’s no way your org is mature enough to be operate as a recognizedly criminal organization. At this stage, to remain operating openly and legally, members who wish to engage in illegal acts must do secretly so as to not implicate the broader org & its membership.
This is partly why I like Matrix. a self-hosted (by the org), unfederated server provides an official private means of communication for the organization, but messages are only visible to the participants of the conversations, and the metadata of who’s talking to who never leaves the server. It would be totally normal for members to have private conversations, why would we assume they’re discussing crimes???
This org does not condone illegal activity! 
yeah this is probably the approach I should have taken. And same, if we get organized enough to merit a matrix server I do have the skills to run it, though I’m sure many would balk
I took a business writing course in college and one thing that always stood out to me was “If you wouldn’t want it to be read aloud at a deposition, don’t put it in writing.” It’s just a good rule for all written communication regardless of the legality of the topics discussed.
Are they new? Have they seen inside of a holding cell before? I hate to say it, but doing a tour of duty in cop custody is a bucket of ice water for this behavior. The most successful orgs have a clear set of rules, and education about why they are in place. People either mellow out or they wash out. Organizing is hard enough when simply trying to establish legitimacy. Adventurism, like it or not, does not look good to the communities we’re trying to organize, and history repeatedly drills this lesson into us.
Online spaces are particularly fraught because they have very low barriers to entry (including here), anonymous by default, easy participation, and easy access to history by cops. A court can still get your login and session information from your computer. These spaces should be treated like public parks, with the expected non-privacy.
one of them has been arrested at least once in the short time I’ve known of them, which is one more than I ever have. And yeah, any group chat or other online space no matter how much encryption I have to assume is vulnerable
I’ve couple of times started one-uping people who were confessing crimes in a wrong environment
Saying you are dealing fent makes the whole thing a joke and most people won’t remember how it started
Yeah man, I had this enriched uranium job that I pulled off… Planted a suitcase nuke inside the president’s nuclear football. Wish I could have seen the look on Reagan’s face when they opened it up and saw the note. Made out with a cool hundred mill.
