6 ms·

I hope not. Regional based internet could become the next major factor when it comes to inequality. For example, don't hire people from Region A because they c

I hope not. Regional based internet could become the next major factor when it comes to inequality. For example, don't hire people from Region A because they can't access the best resources located in Region B.

wyager 5y ago
This is the future the EU chose when they started imposing EU law on foreign internet companies.
- lwhi 5y ago
  No. This the future foreign internet companies chose when they put profits above all else.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  Foreign internet companies aren’t obligated to operate in the EU. If they don’t like the rules they can choose not to participate.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - wyager 5y ago
    If you choose to conflate “sending packets to the EU” with “operating in the EU”, you are choosing a future where the internet is siloed off and the web ceases to be a global network. I am not passing judgment - merely stating a fact.
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      Do the restrictions govern how packets may be sent? Or do they deal with taxes, handling user information, etc?
      - wyager 5y ago
        The restrictions don't need to directly restrict how packets get sent - if they impose tax/regulatory costs for packets getting routed a certain way, the end result will be the same.
        jakelazaroff 5y ago
        This is a bit like complaining about restrictions on "sending atoms to the EU" when they decide to impose tariffs or safety regulations on consumer goods. Businesses shouldn't get to flout regulations just because they happen to be digital.
        wyager 5y ago
        Cool opinion. I’m not disagreeing with it. I don’t care. I’m just explaining that a logical entailment of your opinion is that the internet will be siloed off. Stop trying to convince me that your opinion is right. It’s totally irrelevant whether or not it’s right.
- bruce343434 5y ago
  If you serve something in another country, you abide by their rules. Be it a physical product or a virtual one, which includes a website or webservice.
  - nzmsv 5y ago
    This is not, strictly speaking, an obvious forgone conclusion. Imagine that I call you over the phone, old school style, with voice. Would you or would you not want the governments on either end of the phone line to eavesdrop on our conversation so they can make sure it meets their local laws? What if we communicated by SMS? Email? Posting on a message board? Some people will have an "obviously yes, I want the government to be in charge, are you dumb?" reaction. Others will say "of course I want privacy, are you dumb?" Early Internet chose privacy. Modern internet is increasingly choosing regulation. But this is far from the obvious truth you are claiming it is, if only because the prevailing opinion changed in recent memory.
    - Lio 5y ago
      Actually I'd quite like it if my government could block foreign phone calls that attempt to spoof local numbers. If only as a way of stopping foreign criminal gangs from scamming the vulnerable. The main reason this can't happen is because of international agreements that were made long before the internet age or this type of crime became a thing.
      - nzmsv 5y ago
        And there are others who, when faced with the trade-off, would choose differently. It's amusing how on another thread the general consensus may be a celebration of Let's Encrypt while over here I seem to come off as crazy (and thus deserving of downvotes simply for saying "not everyone agrees with you").
        bruce343434 5y ago
        You are probably receiving downvotes because you're making a non sequitur. The web is, unlike phonelines, encrypted. At best it's a strawman or just a false equivalence.
fuzzy2 5y ago
Hm? I think Parent is just hoping Google is required by law not to rank results this way. It would not bar access to anything.
- nicce 5y ago
  I guess the difference comes, when law requirement happens on EU only, not globally. So the question is, which is worse; not regulate at all or regulated only in one area. It bars access from some point of view, it might not exist if you don't see it from search results.
  - buran77 5y ago
    There's no question. What you're suggesting is "I shot one leg, might as well shoot the other". There's no reason why it would be better if everyone suffers the same fate rather than about half a billion people having it better. Having to provide a better service for so many users just puts pressure on a company by showing every other user not benefiting yet that it's possible, that they can ask and expect more.

wyager 5y ago

This is the future the EU chose when they started imposing EU law on foreign internet companies.

lwhi 5y ago
No. This the future foreign internet companies chose when they put profits above all else.
elliekelly 5y ago
Foreign internet companies aren’t obligated to operate in the EU. If they don’t like the rules they can choose not to participate.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- wyager 5y ago
  If you choose to conflate “sending packets to the EU” with “operating in the EU”, you are choosing a future where the internet is siloed off and the web ceases to be a global network. I am not passing judgment - merely stating a fact.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    Do the restrictions govern how packets may be sent? Or do they deal with taxes, handling user information, etc?
    - wyager 5y ago
      The restrictions don't need to directly restrict how packets get sent - if they impose tax/regulatory costs for packets getting routed a certain way, the end result will be the same.
      - jakelazaroff 5y ago
        This is a bit like complaining about restrictions on "sending atoms to the EU" when they decide to impose tariffs or safety regulations on consumer goods. Businesses shouldn't get to flout regulations just because they happen to be digital.
        wyager 5y ago
        Cool opinion. I’m not disagreeing with it. I don’t care. I’m just explaining that a logical entailment of your opinion is that the internet will be siloed off. Stop trying to convince me that your opinion is right. It’s totally irrelevant whether or not it’s right.
bruce343434 5y ago
If you serve something in another country, you abide by their rules. Be it a physical product or a virtual one, which includes a website or webservice.
- nzmsv 5y ago
  This is not, strictly speaking, an obvious forgone conclusion. Imagine that I call you over the phone, old school style, with voice. Would you or would you not want the governments on either end of the phone line to eavesdrop on our conversation so they can make sure it meets their local laws? What if we communicated by SMS? Email? Posting on a message board? Some people will have an "obviously yes, I want the government to be in charge, are you dumb?" reaction. Others will say "of course I want privacy, are you dumb?" Early Internet chose privacy. Modern internet is increasingly choosing regulation. But this is far from the obvious truth you are claiming it is, if only because the prevailing opinion changed in recent memory.
  - Lio 5y ago
    Actually I'd quite like it if my government could block foreign phone calls that attempt to spoof local numbers. If only as a way of stopping foreign criminal gangs from scamming the vulnerable. The main reason this can't happen is because of international agreements that were made long before the internet age or this type of crime became a thing.
    - nzmsv 5y ago
      And there are others who, when faced with the trade-off, would choose differently. It's amusing how on another thread the general consensus may be a celebration of Let's Encrypt while over here I seem to come off as crazy (and thus deserving of downvotes simply for saying "not everyone agrees with you").
      - bruce343434 5y ago
        You are probably receiving downvotes because you're making a non sequitur. The web is, unlike phonelines, encrypted. At best it's a strawman or just a false equivalence.

fuzzy2 5y ago

Hm? I think Parent is just hoping Google is required by law not to rank results this way. It would not bar access to anything.

nicce 5y ago
I guess the difference comes, when law requirement happens on EU only, not globally. So the question is, which is worse; not regulate at all or regulated only in one area. It bars access from some point of view, it might not exist if you don't see it from search results.
- buran77 5y ago
  There's no question. What you're suggesting is "I shot one leg, might as well shoot the other". There's no reason why it would be better if everyone suffers the same fate rather than about half a billion people having it better. Having to provide a better service for so many users just puts pressure on a company by showing every other user not benefiting yet that it's possible, that they can ask and expect more.