3 ms·

The internet happened and made every service – no matter how local – available everywhere in the world. And then companies happened and turned every online serv

The internet happened and made every service – no matter how local – available everywhere in the world. And then companies happened and turned every online service into a business. Governments often want to regulate business involving entities physically present in the country. If foreign companies refuse to comply, governments could in principle just block them. But they often don't want to, because they benefit more from continued business on their terms. They would prefer that the foreign companies just comply "voluntarily". For example by realizing that the company could lose access to any financial institution that wants to continue operating in that country. And the companies often comply, because they are amoral profit maximizers without any real principles.

bad_user 3y ago
In a democracy, the government represents the will and the interests of the citizens in that country. If UK citizens don't want such laws, they can always protest, at the voting booth or in the streets. It's not the job of multinational companies to have principles regarding the citizens of a country. And indeed, they can comply with the law, or GTFO. And in case they get out, it won't be because of principles, but rather because users of other countries may leave them in case they install backdoors. It's simple economics, and that's good actually, as people in general don't want to be governed by multinationals.
- dartos 3y ago
  The issue is, much like the us, the UK is a representational democracy. You vote for officials who you hope represent you and they often don’t. Also you’re assuming that users leave platforms because of security issues and that’s obviously untrue for most people. I mean… just look at almost any social media platform
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- dewclin 3y ago
  > If UK citizens don't want such laws, they can always protest, at the voting booth or in the streets. Protest has been restricted [1], and neither the Conservatives or Labour offer different positions. For example, Labour have pledged to "toughen" the OSB [1]. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56400751 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56400751 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/01/labour-pledges-toughen-online-safety-bill https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/01/labour-pl...

bad_user 3y ago

In a democracy, the government represents the will and the interests of the citizens in that country. If UK citizens don't want such laws, they can always protest, at the voting booth or in the streets. It's not the job of multinational companies to have principles regarding the citizens of a country. And indeed, they can comply with the law, or GTFO. And in case they get out, it won't be because of principles, but rather because users of other countries may leave them in case they install backdoors. It's simple economics, and that's good actually, as people in general don't want to be governed by multinationals.

dartos 3y ago
The issue is, much like the us, the UK is a representational democracy. You vote for officials who you hope represent you and they often don’t. Also you’re assuming that users leave platforms because of security issues and that’s obviously untrue for most people. I mean… just look at almost any social media platform
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
dewclin 3y ago
> If UK citizens don't want such laws, they can always protest, at the voting booth or in the streets. Protest has been restricted [1], and neither the Conservatives or Labour offer different positions. For example, Labour have pledged to "toughen" the OSB [1]. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56400751 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56400751 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/01/labour-pledges-toughen-online-safety-bill https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jan/01/labour-pl...