2 ms·
If they don't agree they don't have to use it. It's dishonest because the characterization suggests that sovereign nations are beholden to tech companies, but t
by root_axis 6y ago
If they don't agree they don't have to use it. It's dishonest because the characterization suggests that sovereign nations are beholden to tech companies, but they aren't.
- Nydhal 6y agoDefine beholden.
- j0ba 6y agoIf Facebook/Twitter doesn't agree to the law, they don't have to operate in Poland. Nobody is forcing them.
- root_axis 6y agoCorrect. So if anything Facebook/Twitter are beholden to these governments, not the other way around, they could simply block these megacorps if they were inclined to do so. I'm sure that would make many Polish tech founders very happy.
- SulfurHexaFluri 6y agoThey also don't have to allow foreign tech companies to operate in their country without following local laws. US tech companies hold almost as much power in these smaller countries as the government does. Facebook could easily sway an election if it tries.
- root_axis 6y ago> They also don't have to allow foreign tech companies to operate in their country without following local laws. Exactly right. So it's wrong to say that these governments are beholden to the tech companies, they could simply block them if wanted to, and perhaps they should, but either way it's obviously wrong to say that these governments are beholden. > Facebook could easily sway an election if it tries. So could the people being banned by Facebook. What's your point here?
- SulfurHexaFluri 6y agoThere is a step between banning and giving a free for all which is requiring that social media follow local laws with the threat of being banned for non compliance.