New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Sharing here for discussion purposes and also because when someone is trying to actively erase something, as someone who likes to archive things, I like to upload links to these things. (I suppose similar to the Streisand effect)
tldr: blablabla working with defense industry to kill people, gaza supporter unhappy with it
And?
Serious question.
Archive.org and all are already having copies of it. So why make it a deal here?
If Red Hat was "desperately trying to scrub a certain white paper from the internet" they would've at least removed the archive.org entry as that is something they can easily do.
Archive.org will remove any entry if the website owner requests it.
There's even a press release they haven't removed: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/lockheed-martin-red-hat-collaborate-advance-artificial-intelligence-military-missions
Because archive.org isn't a public forum and this is interesting content? What are you bothered about?
It's interesting that they target that market, but not really much of a cover up since company website urls bitrot all the time. If they had been sending DMCAs or something it might be more spicy.
Personally, I don't have any qualms with companies aiding in war fighting efforts. It's when those companies turn against the citizenry that it gets problematic. (ex: recent drama surrounding which AI models could be used for mass surveillance)
He linked to it without adding any of his own commentary on it. I know there's forums that ban OPs who do that to discourage the practice. Even just one sentence to summarize their view on something or why it's important is generally acceptable.
Fair enough. There should be some discourse and really a filter should catch link only posts and not allow them. I didn't consider that.
llamas
Wow, that's repulsive.
I wonder how much of this is Red Hat's doing and how much of it was simply ordered by IBM, because this kind of psychopathic shit is exactly what IBM loves to do. Would Red Hat pre-buyout have ever done this?
Because this story is nonsense?
Oh I see you read that silly comment on Hacker News too 🙄
Because of course the people who ran IBM's German subsidiary in the 1930s are still alive today and are relevant to the direction of the company in 2026 and "love" to do this kind of "psychopathic shit". I mean, it's just a straight line from then to the present, right? Nonstop psychopathy.
You know, Henry Ford once distributed The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Ford must be pretty "psychopathic" today, too. Same must apply to Volkswagon, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, BASF, Siemens, Mitsubishi, Toshiba...I mean, Lloyd's of London once insured slave ships. Can you imagine what kind of psychopathic shit they love to do today? Staggers the mind.
Is it false? Their whitepaper looks pretty real.
Now, the whole idea about this being a coverup... Sure, that seems like hyperbole. More likely someone in marketing just made one of a hundred decisions that day, one of which was to remove a PR post that caused them to look not-so-great.
I didn't even read about this on HN.
From the looks of it, Ford changed. Did IBM?
Yes, I admit linking to the history of IBM was a bit of a low blow since companies can and do change, but IBM does have a history of working with various governments to do things that are, frankly, evil. Oracle, too.
The whitepaper is real. The bit about "trying to erase it from the internet" is nonsense.
Did the "journalists" involved even ask Red Hat for a comment?
"Red Hat removes a page from their web site" should be the true title of this "story".
You just said they "love" to do "psychopathic shit" and you're not even sure?
I agree, I just edited my comment to specify that since I just realized that might be what you're talking about.
The question mark was rhetorical. IBM has not changed in that they still buddy up with the guy with the biggest knife. A less inflammatory version of what I wanted to say would be something along the lines of "IBM is one of those companies that will accept unethical and controversial government contracts with little to no resistance and benefits directly from funding going to the military-industrial complex".
C'mon, we all know it's Oracle spreading evil to the government customer in any equation involving Oracle.