4 ms·
> "we can't serve you this because your jurisdiction forbids it (but ours doesn't)" should almost never arise. Uh, it happens all the time. In fact, it's by f
by morgante 11y ago
> "we can't serve you this because your jurisdiction forbids it (but ours doesn't)" should almost never arise.
Uh, it happens all the time. In fact, it's by far the most frequent kind of censorship.
From TFA:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Facebook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Facebook
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter
Most major web services are based in a country with relatively lax censorship laws but still comply with censorship laws in other jurisdictions.
- thescriptkiddie 11y agoWhile this happens all the time, I would argue that it is not a good use case for HTTP 451. A better approach would be to just serve the content. If a country wants to censor your content they can do it the hard way. Don't help the bad guys.
- morgante 11y ago> I would argue that it is not a good use case for HTTP 451 What is a good use case for HTTP 451 then? Rarely does the calculus favor getting your entire site blocked because you refuse to censor one piece of content. At least by serving HTTP 451 you could also potentially offer suggestions like using Tor.
- paulddraper 11y agoIf you don't play along, the bad guys will block your whole site.