A Network Called Resistance: An Interview with Autistici/Inventati

---

 Originally Published 8/31/26 - 3:23PM PST Updated Institutional Responses 8/31/26 - 6:35PM PST Updated Banca Etica Statement 9/01/26 - 3:02AM PST  Editor’s note

This interview was conducted in writing with Autistici/Inventati following its August 26, 2026 designation by the United States under Executive Order 13224.

Sabot Media is an independent publication. We are not affiliated with A/I, do not represent the collective and did not conduct this interview at its direction. We are not fundraising for A/I, transmitting donations, providing technical or other services, mirroring its infrastructure, operating replacement services or archiving Noblogs material.

The interview has been edited only for spelling, punctuation, formatting and clarity. Any substantive condensation or reordering is identified. Links and brief explanatory context added by the editors appear in brackets. A/I was given the opportunity to review its own words for factual accuracy; it did not exercise editorial control over our introduction, reporting, questions or conclusions.

Statements by A/I represent the collective’s position. Claims concerning third parties are attributed accordingly and should not be read as independently verified unless our accompanying reporting says otherwise.

We sent separate questions to Public Interest Registry, Banca Etica, PayPal, The US Treasury Department and The US State Department. Their responses, where received, and their status as of publication appear below and will be updated as needed.

Interview with Autistici/InventatiImmediate response and consequences1. When and how did A/I first learn about the U.S. designation, and how did the collective initially respond?

A/I response:

We first learned about the designation via a tweet on Marco Rubio’s X account. We then did a bit of digging on the Treasury and State Department websites and eventually found the official announcements. The first thing we did was write a short statement to counter the allegations and start spreading it as widely as possible.

Then we had to check whether we had any assets in the United States, and we set about moving everything to different jurisdictions. We did not think PIR would act so swiftly, so we focused on domain registrars—we still had some things with a U.S.-based registrar—and PayPal. Apart from that, we thought we would be rather safe.

Then we had to answer hundreds of emails and interview requests, set up a coordinated response plan, and find lawyers as well as a press office. None of this proved quick to do, and we are still trying to juggle everything.

2. Since the designation, what consequences have already materialized—financially, technologically, institutionally or socially?

A/I response:

Our PayPal account has been closed for good, and we have been notified about it. To explain its decision, PayPal mentioned the designation of A/I by the U.S. authorities in the email it sent two days after terminating our account.

Autistici.org is also gone for good, and nobody felt the need to notify us. Our bank account is still active at the moment, but today is Sunday, August 30, and bank offices in Italy are closed. We sent an official legal warning to the bank not to close the account, and we have a call with the bank and our lawyers on Monday, August 31. We will see whether it has decided to reconsider its decision.

3. Have you seen banks, technology companies, hosting providers or other institutions over-comply by taking actions beyond what the sanctions clearly require?

Yes. Banca Etica’s reported decision to close our account illustrates how de-risking operates. The United States did not need to issue a direct order to the bank, and it has not been established that Italian law requires the relationship to be terminated. The bank can decide that maintaining the relationship creates too much legal, financial or reputational risk because our OFAC entry carries a secondary-sanctions warning.

We believe something similar occurred with our domain, although the exact chain of responsibility has not yet been publicly established. We attribute the intervention to PIR, but PIR has not publicly stated why it acted or whether OFAC instructed it to do so.

This is one of the central dangers of the designation. The United States does not need to order every company individually to abandon us. It can create enough uncertainty and fear that institutions impose the isolation themselves.

4. How has the designation affected ordinary A/I and Noblogs users, including people who have no relationship to any organization named by the U.S. government?

A/I response:

We covered this point in an update on our blog. In any case, mailboxes are working: our users just need to access them through a different server address. The @autistici.org mailboxes will be replaced with a different domain, but we are still implementing this step. In the meantime, the owners of these mailboxes can create an alias with a different domain and use that alias to send and receive email.

As for mailing lists created with the autistici.org domain, we moved all of them to a different domain and, as of today, they should be working. Noblogs.org has not been affected by the U.S. government’s decision, but it was compromised and we are trying to restore and secure it, as detailed on our blog.

5. What effects have been more difficult for outsiders to see? Are there quieter forms of isolation, fear or self-censorship that may never appear in an official record?

A/I response:

As for quieter effects, someone commented that you discover how much an infrastructure means to you and your life as soon as it disappears, and we think this will prove true.

We also think we are only seeing the short-term effects, since we cannot possibly know what the implications of this decision will be for U.S. citizens who use our services or connect with us for other reasons. While we were seeking legal advice, a U.S. lawyer recommended that U.S. citizens and U.S.-based organizations seek a legal opinion about the effects of the U.S. government’s decision. We cannot comment much further than this at the moment.

Infrastructure, political commitment and state power6. The U.S. government describes A/I as part of the operational infrastructure of designated groups. What does that description misunderstand—or deliberately distort—about A/I and the services you provide?

It distorts the difference between providing communications infrastructure and directing what people do with it.

We are a volunteer-run Italian collective that has provided email, hosting, mailing lists, chat, videoconferencing, streaming and tools for privacy and anonymity since 2001. Our purpose is to make digital self-defense and free communication available to activists, individuals, groups and associations.

We have never claimed to be politically neutral. We are antifascist, antiracist, antisexist, antimilitarist, anticapitalist and opposed to authoritarianism. We select projects according to their compatibility with those principles. But political affinity does not mean that we direct, control or participate in everything users communicate through our infrastructure.

Our services are managed through a legally recognized association with legal responsibilities, contractual relationships and obligations under Italian law. Previous proceedings concerning third-party use of our infrastructure did not establish that we were responsible for users’ activity. We have fulfilled the legal obligations applicable to the services we provide.

The U.S. government is attempting to transform the existence of politically committed infrastructure into evidence of participation in every action associated with its users.

7. A/I has never claimed to be a politically neutral service provider. What does it mean to offer infrastructure based on political affinity without directing, controlling or participating in everything users do with it?

A/I response:

We never look into what users do with our infrastructure. Once an account has been created, we act as a mere conduit. As for mailing lists and mail accounts, we open accounts as soon as we have confirmed that requesters have accepted our Terms of Service and manifesto and respect our policy.

On Noblogs, we do not even ask for that, since anyone who has a mail account on our servers—or on other privacy-friendly servers we trust—is free to open a blog. In any case, we do not know our account owners’ identities and ask them not to disclose their identities to us under any circumstances.

We believe users and readers will notify us if someone violates our policy while using our services. We would certainly act if we received an official legal order to shut down an account that violates a law; in such cases, we are bound to comply with existing regulations.

8. Is the government collapsing the distinction between a communications provider and the people who communicate through it? What precedent would that establish for other independent providers?

Yes. That collapse is at the center of the designation.

The accusation is not simply that we carried out a particular attack. The United States argues that providing email, hosting, chat, streaming, encryption and other technological services can constitute material support when those services are used by people or organizations it has designated.

That reasoning shifts responsibility from the person carrying out an action to the provider maintaining the infrastructure through which people communicate.

The precedent extends far beyond A/I. The same theory could be used against email providers, hosting projects, cloud services, encrypted messaging systems, payment processors and domain registrars. It encourages providers to monitor, investigate and exclude users—and to terminate entire services whenever they fear that one user may create sanctions exposure.

9. Earlier attacks targeted particular servers, disks and accounts. This designation instead targets the financial, technological and institutional relationships surrounding A/I. How does that change the nature of the threat?

Earlier attacks often focused on a particular machine, account or piece of data. We responded by distributing our infrastructure, encrypting information and designing services capable of continuing when a server was seized or a provider became hostile.

This attack operates at several external layers simultaneously. A domain can be removed from normal DNS resolution. A bank can close an account. A payment processor can block transactions. Registrars, hosts and technology providers can withdraw because they fear sanctions exposure.

We can control and protect our machines, but we do not control the .org registry, international banking networks, payment systems or every company connecting our infrastructure to the wider internet.

The objective is no longer simply to seize a server. It is to make the collective institutionally and economically untouchable.

10. What does it mean when encryption, minimal logging and privacy protections are treated as evidence of criminal intent rather than forms of digital self-defense?

A/I response:

They cannot accept that someone would open their own house to random people so they can freely build their own tools and narratives and speak for themselves. As much as they boast of their respect for free speech and individual rights, the United States cannot think beyond the power of money and the need to control what other people want to do and how they want to live their lives.

We think people are responsible for what they do, and they deserve the opportunity to struggle for a better life, for a better world and to overcome injustice. We think that providing infrastructure that lets them explain how they plan to do that, and find others who share the same ideas, is worth our time, effort and all the work we put into it. Names and identities have nothing to do with this.

11. Why do you think autonomous communications infrastructure has become such an important target now?

A/I response:

We think the U.S. government wanted to make a point. The United States—and Trump specifically—destroyed multilateralism and international diplomacy, together with any sense that shared rules are for everyone to abide by. They are saying they own the infosphere and all networks.

Unfortunately, we do not think this will spark a movement toward recognizing networks and communications as a common good above individual states and jurisdictions. Instead, it will ignite a move by every powerful country to grab a piece of the cake and steal it from the others—which is the exact opposite of the original idea behind global networking.

It is the same thing we have seen in the financial sphere: globalize poverty and exploitation, privatize gain and privilege. Then again, We think they also wanted to target political activities that damage their image and their projects for the future of the United States. Hitting us was just a means, not an end in itself. At least, that is part of what we are dealing with now: the fallout.

12. What does this action reveal about the power of the United States to isolate a small, non-U.S. collective through banks and private technology companies?

The designation does not automatically make us illegal in Italy or throughout the European Union. The United States, Italy and the European Union maintain distinct legal systems and sanctions lists.

But formal jurisdiction is only part of the story. Our OFAC entry carries a secondary-sanctions warning. Banks and technology companies outside the United States may fear losing access to American markets, dollar transactions, correspondent banking or U.S.-based services if they continue dealing with us.

That fear turns private companies into enforcers of American foreign policy. The United States does not need to issue a direct order to every Italian bank, registrar or technology provider. It can create a compliance risk, and institutions will isolate us to protect themselves.

The mechanism is:

OFAC designation → compliance risk → institutional de-risking → termination of services

This is how a decision made in Washington can produce immediate consequences for a small collective operating legally in Italy.

13. The designation repeatedly connects antifascism with terrorism. How do you understand that political move, and whom is it intended to frighten beyond A/I?

A/I response:

As I said above, this move clearly targets everyone who radically opposes the U.S. government, everyone who thinks what it is doing is wrong and should be challenged and stopped.

I do not think it is only about antifa groups—not to mention that declaring yourself against antifascists makes you an anti-antifascist, which means a fascist by definition, does it not? We think this decision also targets less militant people who want to be part of a general opposition to the current new U.S. authoritarianism, its vision and its project.

14. If this designation is allowed to stand without serious resistance, who or what do you believe may be targeted next?

A/I response:

The next infrastructure social movements use? But we think large commercial infrastructure providers should realize that this precedent is a very real danger for them too. What if anti-ICE movements used Google Sites? Would the United States then ask Google to shut down their accounts? Would it ban Google altogether?

A/I’s history and political vision15. At A/I’s founding, the least technically experienced participant was deliberately placed at the keyboard. What does that story say about the relationship between knowledge and power?

A/I response:

We firmly believe everyone should be empowered to take technology into their own hands. We started this project because we also wanted to learn, and we have come a loooong way over these twenty-five years. Of course, not all of us are as technically knowledgeable as others, but we learn, we struggle and we try to include each one of us so that we can all take up necessary tasks.

Politics has to do with objectives; technology has to do with means. But there is no technology without political implications. We once used to say, “Technical problems do not exist; they are excuses.” Maybe this is a bit too much, but it means that one should always consider the goals first and only afterward decide how to achieve them. We should always think about what political goals we want to achieve through technology.

16. A/I’s history repeatedly follows a pattern: disclose the attack, repair the damage, share the lesson and build something harder to destroy. Can the present attack be transformed in the same way?

A/I response:

I would really like to say, “Of course,” and we will try as hard as we can. But this is very big, and it is an attack on the fundamentally free structure of the internet that exposes its partiality and widespread privatization.

Some of the things happening now were theoretical threats we knew about, but the measures needed to prevent them were far beyond our capabilities. We cannot become a supranational domain manager 

We will try to do our best. Everyone should try, just as we will. The first person who finds the solution should share it, and we should run ahead of these people who can think only in terms of power and destruction.

Preservation and solidarity17. What responses since the designation have felt genuinely useful or meaningful to the collective?

A/I response:

Solidarity has been huge, and we are very grateful. Actions, contributions and articles created in good faith to support us cannot be harmful. Some people have tried to use this situation to promote themselves or taunt others, but I suppose that tells you more about them than about us.

18. What should people in the United States understand before attempting donations, technical assistance, mirroring or other forms of direct support?

A/I response:

We still do not have a clear answer to that. We have been talking with lawyers from EFF to obtain a clear statement. At the moment, we understand that until September 25 nothing changes. After that date, U.S.-based citizens should seek legal counsel to evaluate the risks of getting in touch with us in any way. We are not sure whether this applies simply to using our services.

Editor’s note: This reflects A/I’s understanding at the time of the interview and is not legal advice.

We ask everybody to be very careful because we do not want anyone to be harmed. Your lives and freedom mean more than our network. This has always been true and always will be. Stay human, before and above anything else.

19. What can journalists, researchers, publishers and digital-rights organizations do independently and responsibly?

A/I response:

They have to speak up, take a stand, and push every decision-maker and policymaker to intervene and pressure the U.S. government to reverse its decision. We need a global wave to mount, and we cannot create it alone. We are not that strong alone, but together we will prevail. How did that song go? “We have been nought; we shall be all.”

20. What would meaningful international solidarity—capable of resisting this kind of financial and institutional isolation—look like?

A/I response:

This is a complex question, and I do not think we are able to answer it fully. To me, it would mean seeing thousands of structures similar to Autistici/Inventati be born and grow. Let us have a thousand servers, a thousand networks. Let us flood them with possibilities until they run out of time and money to pursue and persecute us.

Looking forward21. What question do you wish journalists and digital-rights organizations were asking but aren’t?

A/I response:

How does this affect the status of the internet as a common good? Why can the United States decide such crucial things for the whole world? When is imperialism finally going to disappear? But maybe I am being a bit too dreamy here.

22. What would constitute survival—not merely keeping A/I’s servers online, but preserving the political project surrounding them?

A/I response:

We have to be able to keep doing what we do for everyone around the world. That is the objective. Will we be able to do it? I do not know, but we will give it our best shot. As always.

23. The first server was called Paranoia. What should the network created around it be called now?

A/I response:

Resistance.

  

---

Responses from major institutions:

Public Interest Registry – 

8/30/2026 2:22 PM - Acknowledged our inquiry and said a response was forthcoming. 

8/31/2026 9:41 AM - In an August 31 statement attributed to PIR, the registry confirmed that it suspended the affected .ORG domain after it was identified on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List.

“Public Interest Registry (PIR) is a U.S.-based organization and is required to comply with U.S. law, including applicable sanctions. In this case, the affected .ORG domain name was identified on the U.S. Treasury Department’s OFAC Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List, and PIR is legally mandated to suspend it. The registrant of the domain has a right to challenge the designation determination. PIR has no involvement in that process. Should the registrant be successful in such a proceeding, the suspension would be lifted.”

PIR did not identify the specific statutory or regulatory provision it believes mandates suspension, say whether OFAC directly instructed it to act, explain whether A/I or its registrar received notice, or describe any internal process for reviewing the suspension. Its statement indicates that restoration depends upon successfully challenging the underlying designation rather than appealing directly to PIR.

8/31/26 at 6:35 PM - In additional information provided to Sabot Media "on background", PIR stated:

“It is extremely rare for a .ORG domain to be identified on the U.S. Treasury Department’s OFAC Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) List.

“When a .ORG is added to the OFAC SDN list, PIR is legally required to suspend the domain or could face significant civil and criminal liability, including imprisonment.

“In this case and all cases, PIR follows a standard protocol to immediately suspend the domain name to remain in full compliance with the law. PIR doesn’t know the details of this specific determination or any other OFAC determination.

“PIR supports a free and open Internet and fully supports the registrant’s right to challenge the designation determination.”

PIR said it had nothing additional to share. It did not identify the specific statute, regulation or OFAC directive that it believes required the suspension.

Bance Etica - no response by publication, request sent 8/30, will publish updates.

9/01/26 - UPDATE -  Banca Etica has confirmed that it temporarily suspended operations on Autistici/Inventati’s account following the U.S. designation. The bank said closure remains probable, but it is consulting Italian banking associations, the Ministry of Economy and Finance, and technical experts in an effort to find a way to preserve the account.

According to the bank, A/I has maintained the account since 2018 with regular activity, a medium-risk classification and no cause for concern under anti-money-laundering controls. The account’s risk classification was increased only after A/I appeared on the U.S. OFAC list.

Banca Etica publicly condemned the use of counterterrorism sanctions to target political opposition. It warned that continuing to serve an OFAC-designated customer could expose the bank to secondary sanctions, potentially cutting its approximately 130,000 customers and members off from U.S.-controlled card networks and international payment infrastructure.

The bank has not announced that the account will remain open. Its operation is presently suspended while the bank searches for an alternative to closure.

Read Banca Etica’s complete statement in Italian.

Paypal - no response by publication, request sent 8/30, will publish updates.

The US Treasury Department - no response by publication, request sent 8/30, will publish updates.

The US State Department - no response by publication, request sent 8/30, will publish updates.