5 ms·
The original reason for the per-country domains was to allow Google to "continue promoting free expression and responsible publishing while providing greater fl
by donalhunt 6y ago
The original reason for the per-country domains was to allow Google to "continue promoting free expression and responsible publishing while providing greater flexibility in complying with valid removal requests pursuant to local law."
It arose around the question "Does a judge in country A have the ability to censor content in country B?". Google has long argued that a judge does not have this authority.
https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/2402711 https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/2402711
https://www.theverge.com/2012/1/31/2761454/google-blogger-automatic-redirect-censorship-cctld https://www.theverge.com/2012/1/31/2761454/google-blogger-au...
- pc86 6y ago> Google has long argued that a judge does not have this authority. Google, and anyone with a functioning brain stem. Jurisdictions exist for a reason, and with a number of exceptions somewhere in the low single digits (and maybe zero), all jurisdictions end at the borders of a country.
- quickthrower2 6y agoKind of. Countries have jurisdictions within them, such as states and there is the EU of course, and then countries make treaties with each other so there can be influence across countries.
- vikramkr 6y agoInfluence but not jurisdiction. Outside of crimes against humanity/universal jurisdiction, I cant think of a situation where a country A would have jurisdiction over an event that happens in another country B involving nobody of nationality A. Even in the EU there's a lot of guidelines and processes for figuring out which member country gets jurisdiction over cases.
- reaperducer 6y agoI cant think of a situation where a country A would have jurisdiction over an event that happens in another country B involving nobody of nationality A Trade sanctions. Banking regulations. It happens all the time.
- vikramkr 6y agoThose still involve people of nationality A. The people importing/sending out funds to the bank etc.
- reaperducer 6y agoNot necessarily. Country A can put an embargo on certain products to Country B. When Country C sends those products to Country B, Country A refuses to do business with Country C, or fines it, or levies some other penalty.
- vikramkr 6y agoCountry A is still involved in their transactions with country C. The only way they are exercising any power is through their direct involvement in the trade network. This also isn't a legal court case with a crime and jurisdiction so it doesnt even really fit the idea of where crimes are evaluated in a court of law - international trade wars are not criminal law unless there are crimes against humanity involved, which I already put a disclaimer about as one of those crimes considered having universal jurisdiction. Though you still have to invade them to be able to prosecute people, in which case you extend your jurisdiction by turning the country into a territory as in ww2
- pc86 6y agoThat doesn't give A any jurisdiction over B or C. They're simply retaliating. It's important to talk about the same thing.
- pc86 6y agoThis isn't what jurisdiction means.
- quickthrower2 6y agoTaking the example of Julian Assange, a UK judge gets to effectively choose his fate, even if that is deciding which jurisdiction he ends up in next. You are technically correct. In practice the UK is making the decision of his ultimate fate, so I think that is worth highlighting. However it may not apply at all to the original argument made, so sorry for the typical HN detour.
- donalhunt 6y agoApparently YouTube has had to deal with that because media companies have licensed content on a per state (and even a per city) basis!!