4 ms·

Wouldn't this be proof that Meta is dealing with the Iranian government directly and thus violating US sanctions against Iran?

by lagadu 4y ago

rippercushions 4y ago
Do we have any proof it's Meta doing this, as opposed to the Iranian government blocking Whatsapp within its borders?
- John23832 4y ago
  It's done at an application level?
- solarist 4y ago
  https://twitter.com/roozbehp/status/1572841090910388225?s=46&t=DyojB950vZEuOEDfqRs3UA https://twitter.com/roozbehp/status/1572841090910388225?s=46... | As a former WhatsApp engineer, I don't think WhatsApp even has any mechanism to do such a thing. It's probably an unintended artifact of its infrastructure that the Iranian government has exploited, and knowing the WhatsApp team, they are probably already working on a fix.
shadowgovt 4y ago
Possibly. Sanctions law is a hot mess of sometimes contradictory exceptions. In this case, the exceptions regarding "informational materials" may apply. https://www.lawfareblog.com/did-twitter-violate-us-sanctions-law https://www.lawfareblog.com/did-twitter-violate-us-sanctions...
- lupire 4y ago
  The Berman Amendment protects transferring information to/from Iran. Blocking information seems quite the opposite.
eqvinox 4y ago
(As much as I dislike Meta —) applying foreign laws to foreign users isn't "dealing" with the Iranian government. "Dealing" in the legal sense generally requires a two-way exchange. If Iran unidirectionally imposes a regulation, that's not a deal; Meta has made no decision to enter into it. (Reference/entry point for legal aspects about this: contracts are also invalid if they're purely unidirectional. If I remember correctly there's a LegalEagle YT video about this, but you can probably dig this up elsewhere too.)
dang 4y ago
(This was originally a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32934936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32934936, which originally had a title implying that.)

Wouldn't this be proof that Meta is dealing with the Iranian government directly and thus violating US sanctions against Iran?

by lagadu 4y ago

Wouldn't this be proof that Meta is dealing with the Iranian government directly and thus violating US sanctions against Iran?

rippercushions 4y ago

Do we have any proof it's Meta doing this, as opposed to the Iranian government blocking Whatsapp within its borders?

John23832 4y ago
It's done at an application level?
solarist 4y ago
https://twitter.com/roozbehp/status/1572841090910388225?s=46&t=DyojB950vZEuOEDfqRs3UA https://twitter.com/roozbehp/status/1572841090910388225?s=46... | As a former WhatsApp engineer, I don't think WhatsApp even has any mechanism to do such a thing. It's probably an unintended artifact of its infrastructure that the Iranian government has exploited, and knowing the WhatsApp team, they are probably already working on a fix.

shadowgovt 4y ago

Possibly. Sanctions law is a hot mess of sometimes contradictory exceptions. In this case, the exceptions regarding "informational materials" may apply. https://www.lawfareblog.com/did-twitter-violate-us-sanctions-law https://www.lawfareblog.com/did-twitter-violate-us-sanctions...

lupire 4y ago
The Berman Amendment protects transferring information to/from Iran. Blocking information seems quite the opposite.

eqvinox 4y ago

(As much as I dislike Meta —) applying foreign laws to foreign users isn't "dealing" with the Iranian government. "Dealing" in the legal sense generally requires a two-way exchange. If Iran unidirectionally imposes a regulation, that's not a deal; Meta has made no decision to enter into it. (Reference/entry point for legal aspects about this: contracts are also invalid if they're purely unidirectional. If I remember correctly there's a LegalEagle YT video about this, but you can probably dig this up elsewhere too.)

dang 4y ago

(This was originally a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32934936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32934936, which originally had a title implying that.)