2 ms·

Nations should have better laws, but it's not up to a company in one country to decide what's a better law for another country. This makes no sense, and speaks

Nations should have better laws, but it's not up to a company in one country to decide what's a better law for another country. This makes no sense, and speaks of sense of supremacy and entitlement that can only come back to bite you in the rear. I also regularly wish things were better in this or that country, including my own. But you and I are entitled to have this bar-level talk about politics after work, while having a beer. A giant corporation is not entitled to trample over the rule of law in any country, even if that rule is corrupt, inferior, imperfect, unfair, or whatever other qualifications we may subjectively apply to it.

rektide 3y ago
But most nations seem to be trying to make it so wherever on the internet their citizens travel, their laws apply. Even though in many cases there's literally no servers, no offices, no business in a country. Or worse, you have India, which just mandates you do have an office, which is an unbelievably bullshit way to get their sneaky talons into the entire rest of the world's business. Nation's need a limit to jurisdiction. They are not respecting that on the internet, their people are travelling abroad. Until nation's can start to recognize some limit to sovereignty, there is no moral or ethical obligation to fulfill their limitless absurd egotistical power-mongering. It is good that we ignore this illegitimate unjust application of power. But to repeat, many companies do have real legitemate business operations & physical presences in other countries. Then you do have to obey those laws. Your obey-all-laws maximalism doesn't acknowledge any limit, & poses a stark picture of absolute lawfulness. How do we navigate conflict between nations; what happens when one countries data protection laws conflict with another countries surveillance laws? What happens when either a nation or a jurisdiction goes power mad & demands basically unfettered access? In general I don't see any reason why we would obey the laws of countries that we don't have a presence in. Your people are coming to us, your people have left your nation. If I go visit Italy I am under their jurisdiction. What's happening now is a farce, this idea that each nation has jurisdiction over the entire internet. It's just not so. There is no internet like that. The lowest-common-denominator of agreeable rights & permissions to exist & host yourself online is the null-set.
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  Sending information into a country that violates its laws is not that different to violating its airspace. We live in a society where information is the highest value commodity and around which everything else revolves. Information controls us, our beliefs, our machines, our processes and systems, and information can respectively destroy them. It's natural that you don't want a rocket in your airspace, even if it wasn't launched from your land. The solution is probably a consortium of all countries that participate in Internet, for some baseline rules and laws that all countries equally abide to. But for this to happen we have a lot of social evolution to go through. Say we still have wars in this world. If we're willing to kill each other and take each other's land and assets, we have zero hope over having uniform opinion about the Internet.

rektide 3y ago

But most nations seem to be trying to make it so wherever on the internet their citizens travel, their laws apply. Even though in many cases there's literally no servers, no offices, no business in a country. Or worse, you have India, which just mandates you do have an office, which is an unbelievably bullshit way to get their sneaky talons into the entire rest of the world's business. Nation's need a limit to jurisdiction. They are not respecting that on the internet, their people are travelling abroad. Until nation's can start to recognize some limit to sovereignty, there is no moral or ethical obligation to fulfill their limitless absurd egotistical power-mongering. It is good that we ignore this illegitimate unjust application of power. But to repeat, many companies do have real legitemate business operations & physical presences in other countries. Then you do have to obey those laws. Your obey-all-laws maximalism doesn't acknowledge any limit, & poses a stark picture of absolute lawfulness. How do we navigate conflict between nations; what happens when one countries data protection laws conflict with another countries surveillance laws? What happens when either a nation or a jurisdiction goes power mad & demands basically unfettered access? In general I don't see any reason why we would obey the laws of countries that we don't have a presence in. Your people are coming to us, your people have left your nation. If I go visit Italy I am under their jurisdiction. What's happening now is a farce, this idea that each nation has jurisdiction over the entire internet. It's just not so. There is no internet like that. The lowest-common-denominator of agreeable rights & permissions to exist & host yourself online is the null-set.

3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
Sending information into a country that violates its laws is not that different to violating its airspace. We live in a society where information is the highest value commodity and around which everything else revolves. Information controls us, our beliefs, our machines, our processes and systems, and information can respectively destroy them. It's natural that you don't want a rocket in your airspace, even if it wasn't launched from your land. The solution is probably a consortium of all countries that participate in Internet, for some baseline rules and laws that all countries equally abide to. But for this to happen we have a lot of social evolution to go through. Say we still have wars in this world. If we're willing to kill each other and take each other's land and assets, we have zero hope over having uniform opinion about the Internet.