6 ms·

Here's a fun story. I see that this post is from fanbyte.com. Existing got me banned from fanbyte.com and all of the websites they own. Specifically, existing

Here's a fun story. I see that this post is from fanbyte.com. Existing got me banned from fanbyte.com and all of the websites they own. Specifically, existing in a particular country. Not an exotic or unusual one on an embargo list or something -- just some country that Fanbyte felt they weren't earning enough profit from. They banned the entire populations of about ten countries from their entire network of websites earlier this year, for that reason. If this guy who got banned from Twitter works for Fanbyte, I have no sympathy. I'll never know the details of the story though, because Fanbyte is out there banning entire nations.

OrangeMonkey 4y ago
Don't have sympathy for an individual - instead, consider the path this is taking humanity down and consider what happened to you. A bigtech company made the decision that the voices from your country were not worth being heard so banned you from global discussions. Individuals can also be banned, with no recourse, due to an AI model gone awry. How do we deal with this and make things better? Legit question - I don't know myself and it eats at me sometimes.
starkd 4y ago
But could that be Fanbyte's way of dealing with a specific country's laws? Perhaps they don't have the manpower and those countries are small enough that the only cost effective option is to just not operate in those countries.
- SSLy 4y ago
  Somehow it's only Fanbyte that have this problem with people in Turkey / Serbia etc. Why has no other publisher went to such measures?
  - starkd 4y ago
    But different companies can make entirely different business decisions in such situations. Another company may decide devoting extra resources is worth it. It is a subjective value assessment that can go either way.
  - safety1st 4y ago
    Incredibly, they had a remote employee in Serbia, so when they banned all these countries, they banned one of their employees. Last I heard they were telling him to use a VPN to bypass their own corporate rules (which they have admitted exist to dodge Serbian laws...!)
    - sgjohnson 4y ago
      Which is fine. Because if the company has no physical presence in a certain country, they can basically ignore their laws, because what’s the country going to do? Block your website? Having an employee there establishes physical presence.
      - safety1st 4y ago
        Right, but their stated reason for instituting the policy in the first place was that they couldn't ignore Serbian laws if their websites were available to be viewed in Serbia.
        dahdum 4y ago
        I'd consider the Serbian employee at risk if I wasn't following any applicable Serbian laws. Their explanation seems to be that even the legal review of these countries would cost far more than any revenue they are making, and their lawyers are advising these countries need that review.
        sgjohnson 4y ago
        > they couldn't ignore Serbian laws if their websites were available to be viewed in Serbia. With no presence in Serbia, they absolutely can. Serbia has got virtually no recourse in such a situation. What are they going to do? Sue then in Serbia? They’ll never show up. Then trying to enforce the jugdement overseas will be a monumental (and also completely pointless) exercise. Try suing someone in, say, the United States for violating Serbian law. Your case will get dismissed because the said US court would have no jurisdiction over the matter even if the company was based in the US.
ezoe 4y ago
- safety1st 4y ago
  It's none of those countries homie, thanks for letting us know you hate random countries or whatever
- piva00 4y ago
  Well, Japan has APPI and as far as I know APPI is semi-equivalent to GDPR (which would be the EU's "horrible" Internet law, which doesn't apply only to the Internet btw). So you might hate Japan as well, right?
  - ezoe 4y ago
    At least, Japanese court will reject to apply these law on foreign entities for they have no jurisdiction.
    - piva00 4y ago
      And the EU tries to apply it to local subsidiaries if those are "main establishments" of data processing. There is a provision on finding the main establishment to avoid loopholes where local subsidiaries in the Union could hide the main company behind a legal entity in the Union (as was the case with Google LLC when they got fined by CNIL). Japanese courts not having this provision is a major drawback, which I don't believe they would leave open. Relevant GDPR regulation: > Article 4(16) of the GDPR states that ‘main establishment’ means: > - as regards a controller with establishments in more than one Member State, the place of its central administration in the Union, unless the decisions on the purposes and means of the processing of personal data are taken in another establishment of the controller in the Union and the latter establishment has the power to have such decisions implemented, in which case the establishment having taken such decisions is to be considered to be the main establishment; > - as regards a processor with establishments in more than one Member State, the place of its central administration in the Union, or, if the processor has no central administration in the Union, the establishment of the processor in the Union where the main processing activities in the context of the activities of an establishment of the processor take place to the extent that the processor is subject to specific obligations under this Regulation; Keep hating the EU, US and so on but your local place has very similar provisions around data privacy and it's considered almost completely aligned with GDPR.
vetinari 4y ago
China, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, Serbia and India Just wow.

OrangeMonkey 4y ago

Don't have sympathy for an individual - instead, consider the path this is taking humanity down and consider what happened to you. A bigtech company made the decision that the voices from your country were not worth being heard so banned you from global discussions. Individuals can also be banned, with no recourse, due to an AI model gone awry. How do we deal with this and make things better? Legit question - I don't know myself and it eats at me sometimes.

starkd 4y ago

But could that be Fanbyte's way of dealing with a specific country's laws? Perhaps they don't have the manpower and those countries are small enough that the only cost effective option is to just not operate in those countries.

SSLy 4y ago
Somehow it's only Fanbyte that have this problem with people in Turkey / Serbia etc. Why has no other publisher went to such measures?
- starkd 4y ago
  But different companies can make entirely different business decisions in such situations. Another company may decide devoting extra resources is worth it. It is a subjective value assessment that can go either way.
- safety1st 4y ago
  Incredibly, they had a remote employee in Serbia, so when they banned all these countries, they banned one of their employees. Last I heard they were telling him to use a VPN to bypass their own corporate rules (which they have admitted exist to dodge Serbian laws...!)
  - sgjohnson 4y ago
    Which is fine. Because if the company has no physical presence in a certain country, they can basically ignore their laws, because what’s the country going to do? Block your website? Having an employee there establishes physical presence.
    - safety1st 4y ago
      Right, but their stated reason for instituting the policy in the first place was that they couldn't ignore Serbian laws if their websites were available to be viewed in Serbia.
      - dahdum 4y ago
        I'd consider the Serbian employee at risk if I wasn't following any applicable Serbian laws. Their explanation seems to be that even the legal review of these countries would cost far more than any revenue they are making, and their lawyers are advising these countries need that review.
      - sgjohnson 4y ago
        > they couldn't ignore Serbian laws if their websites were available to be viewed in Serbia. With no presence in Serbia, they absolutely can. Serbia has got virtually no recourse in such a situation. What are they going to do? Sue then in Serbia? They’ll never show up. Then trying to enforce the jugdement overseas will be a monumental (and also completely pointless) exercise. Try suing someone in, say, the United States for violating Serbian law. Your case will get dismissed because the said US court would have no jurisdiction over the matter even if the company was based in the US.

ezoe 4y ago

safety1st 4y ago
It's none of those countries homie, thanks for letting us know you hate random countries or whatever
piva00 4y ago
Well, Japan has APPI and as far as I know APPI is semi-equivalent to GDPR (which would be the EU's "horrible" Internet law, which doesn't apply only to the Internet btw). So you might hate Japan as well, right?
- ezoe 4y ago
  At least, Japanese court will reject to apply these law on foreign entities for they have no jurisdiction.
  - piva00 4y ago
    And the EU tries to apply it to local subsidiaries if those are "main establishments" of data processing. There is a provision on finding the main establishment to avoid loopholes where local subsidiaries in the Union could hide the main company behind a legal entity in the Union (as was the case with Google LLC when they got fined by CNIL). Japanese courts not having this provision is a major drawback, which I don't believe they would leave open. Relevant GDPR regulation: > Article 4(16) of the GDPR states that ‘main establishment’ means: > - as regards a controller with establishments in more than one Member State, the place of its central administration in the Union, unless the decisions on the purposes and means of the processing of personal data are taken in another establishment of the controller in the Union and the latter establishment has the power to have such decisions implemented, in which case the establishment having taken such decisions is to be considered to be the main establishment; > - as regards a processor with establishments in more than one Member State, the place of its central administration in the Union, or, if the processor has no central administration in the Union, the establishment of the processor in the Union where the main processing activities in the context of the activities of an establishment of the processor take place to the extent that the processor is subject to specific obligations under this Regulation; Keep hating the EU, US and so on but your local place has very similar provisions around data privacy and it's considered almost completely aligned with GDPR.

vetinari 4y ago

China, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, Serbia and India Just wow.