3 ms·

No, I’m saying if FB wish to operate their product in the U.K. they should follow U.K. law, and respect the rights that U.K. law provides to its citizens. If F

No, I’m saying if FB wish to operate their product in the U.K. they should follow U.K. law, and respect the rights that U.K. law provides to its citizens. If FB don’t want to do that, then, yes, they should geo-block the U.K. to avoid the liability. Being an American company doesn’t give them the right to just ignore local laws and customs of other countries, and it would be hypocritical to think otherwise. The US certainly doesn’t allow counterfeit products to enter from China, despite the fact those products would be mostly considered legal in China. So why the hell should American company’s have the right to ignore laws in other countries, just because somethings not illegal in the US? Whether I trust myself to use a service is irrelevant. I should be able to use almost any service made readily available to me in the U.K. under the assumption they follow U.K. law. The onus should be on FB to operate legally and ethical, not on me audit every service I use for legal and ethical violations.

bonoboTP 6y ago
I see. I think it boils down to how we understand the Internet, what analogies we can reach to. What does it mean to "operate in" a country, when talking about the Internet? They don't really operate the product in the UK. You are sending information about yourself to the US and get back a response. Is getting IP packets through a wire the same as getting Chinese products through the mail even though no money changes hands? Or is it more like sending letters?
- avianlyric 6y ago
  > What does it mean to "operate in" a country, when talking about the Internet? They don't really operate the product in the UK. I have to disagree with this statement. I would agree with it, if people from the U.K. were using FB without FB explicitly catering for a U.K. audience, or collecting enough information to fairly accurately identify a U.K. audience. But both of those statements are false. 1. FB advertises on TV and in meatspace in the U.K. I don’t understand how you could not consider that operating in the U.K. Even if the physical servers our elsewhere. 2. We know that FB collect enough data to identify people from the U.K. They undoubtedly segment and sell adverts based on the location of users. So they’re more than capable to identifying U.K. users for legal reasons. > even though no money changes hands? I don’t think this is the standard for determining if someone is operating in a country. I would say the bar is slightly fuzzier, are you offering a simple method for a population to use your product, and targeting them in some manner. The targeting could be anything from explicitly advertising to them, to simply offering cheap and simple shipping to their country. Of people are signing up without you targeting them, then I would happily accept you don’t really have an obligation to follow their local laws. As I mentioned above, I think FB more than qualifies as operating in the U.K. and no doubt if you asked them, they to would agree that they operate in the U.K.

bonoboTP 6y ago

I see. I think it boils down to how we understand the Internet, what analogies we can reach to. What does it mean to "operate in" a country, when talking about the Internet? They don't really operate the product in the UK. You are sending information about yourself to the US and get back a response. Is getting IP packets through a wire the same as getting Chinese products through the mail even though no money changes hands? Or is it more like sending letters?

avianlyric 6y ago
> What does it mean to "operate in" a country, when talking about the Internet? They don't really operate the product in the UK. I have to disagree with this statement. I would agree with it, if people from the U.K. were using FB without FB explicitly catering for a U.K. audience, or collecting enough information to fairly accurately identify a U.K. audience. But both of those statements are false. 1. FB advertises on TV and in meatspace in the U.K. I don’t understand how you could not consider that operating in the U.K. Even if the physical servers our elsewhere. 2. We know that FB collect enough data to identify people from the U.K. They undoubtedly segment and sell adverts based on the location of users. So they’re more than capable to identifying U.K. users for legal reasons. > even though no money changes hands? I don’t think this is the standard for determining if someone is operating in a country. I would say the bar is slightly fuzzier, are you offering a simple method for a population to use your product, and targeting them in some manner. The targeting could be anything from explicitly advertising to them, to simply offering cheap and simple shipping to their country. Of people are signing up without you targeting them, then I would happily accept you don’t really have an obligation to follow their local laws. As I mentioned above, I think FB more than qualifies as operating in the U.K. and no doubt if you asked them, they to would agree that they operate in the U.K.