3 ms·
No? Even in a democracy laws need to be enforced and that has been really hard if a company violating local laws is not based locally. It's the same problem wh
by jabbany 5y ago
No? Even in a democracy laws need to be enforced and that has been really hard if a company violating local laws is not based locally.
It's the same problem why Russian ransomeware groups can roam free and piracy is hard to deal with online.
What the laws are, thats politics. How to enforce them is just a matter of technology.
What the GFW shows is a means to an end. You may not agree with the particular end in the case of China and the CCP (I don't either) but the means itself is a result of addressing a rational need that all governments have.
The danger of the GFW is not that China is using it for oppressive purposes. It's that it works and your local democracy may well also look to it to address the same need for governance it has.
Unless you're saying there's some going to be a "world government", different countries will continue to disagree on what is legal. And the path ahead is to either accept the impossibility of internet governance, or to build up more walls.
- lugu 5y ago> the means itself is a result of addressing a rational need that all governments have. This is untrue. China (to survive as a dictatorship) may need to suppress any content. Without respect for laws. Most country i have been to don't have this need. They need their law to be followed and use different means.
- jabbany 5y agoPlease do tell what other means there are? There is no difference between suppressing arbitrary content and suppressing illegal content. It doesn't matter if the decision to block comes from a dictator or the people's vote. The technology doesn't care. You either have the ability to block content or you don't.
- lugu 5y agoThis is the point: different goals, different means. One must erase any reference to an historical fact in a matter of hours. The other need to dismentle a network of criminals.