4 ms·

I am curious as to how a court in Brazil can require a company that appears to be based in Canada and the USA to block access. If countries are allowed to asser

by Zak 3y ago

I am curious as to how a court in Brazil can require a company that appears to be based in Canada and the USA to block access. If countries are allowed to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction, anyone running a website might need to know and obey the laws of nearly 200 countries. Some of those laws prohibit criticism of their respective governments, sex education, or pornography (including things most people in the US or EU would not consider pornographic).

tibbydudeza 3y ago
A court order would have forced all Brazilian ISP's or the international peering operators on Brazilian soil to block it - Rumble simply pre-empted it to make drama around free speech.
- claytongulick 3y ago
  > to make drama around free speech. I remember when free speech was an ideal that was universally recognized as crucial to a functioning democracy. "Making drama" by refusing to participate in a censorship program strikes me as admirable. What a strange world we live in where so many people sneer at the concept of free exchange and the marketplace of ideas, and those that seek to support it.
  - midasuni 3y ago
    I don’t. I remember when every country and society have different views on freedom of speech and where the limits are.
    - tibbydudeza 3y ago
      US concepts are NOT universal - in South Africa we have strong laws against racist hate speech - call somebody a local slur for black person (k word) here you going to get prosecuted and fined and perhaps even jail never mind being dragged on social media. We call it "crimen injuria" in our laws - right to dignity is defined in our constitution and frankly this has NO place in our society considering our history.
    - claytongulick 3y ago
      You don't remember when free speech was an ideal for democratic societies? You must live in a very different world than I do. "the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom." - John Locke
      - midasuni 3y ago
        Certainly never been in the US. The US decides holocaust denial is fine, but saying “I’m going to kill the President” isn’t. Other countries have different views. The US is happy to arrest people who work for companies who disagree with US limits on free speech who happen to visit the US (Skylarov), and even to use its economic might to get other countries to uphold its anti free speech agenda (Kim Dot Com)
        claytongulick 3y ago
        So, because we fail to meet it, the ideal isn't valuable?
      - tibbydudeza 3y ago
        Not absolute free speech - there are limits.
derefr 3y ago
> If countries are allowed to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction, anyone running a website might need to know and obey the laws of nearly 200 countries. Yes, that's how it works. Specifically, the common argument that applies to most companies (incl. Rumble), is that you're trading within that country if anyone from that country is either paying for your product/service, or making money from your product/service; and therefore you essentially need to function as (if not actually legally have) a per-country corporate subsidiary amenable to the laws of that country, if you want to continue doing that. And sometimes it's even worse; for at least the US and Canada, companies trading with people living in these countries have to know and follow the laws of the state or province their customers live in, when serving those customers. These are mostly simple things like tax codes, yes; but sometimes it's things that are far more arcane — for example, Quebec prohibits promotional first-period pricing that automatically transitions into regular pricing (they consider this a predatory practice.) Companies that advertise promitions in Canada often have fine print that says "offer not valid in Quebec" because of this. This tangled mess of required region-specific logic is, by and large, the moat of e-commerce platforms and payment processors. It's why even large e-commerce services like Steam, that build all this logic internally for most countries, will still integrate with payment processors like Stripe or PayPal — those services are made options to cover the long-tail of countries they don't want to learn and maintain regional rules for. It's also why many companies don't bother to actually sell into every market; and instead allow companies that specialize in "partnering with foreign companies to sell their products into our own domestic market that we understand well" — a.k.a. importers — to do that for them (and skim off some of their margin in the process.)
- piotrkaminski 3y ago
  > Yes, that's how it works. Specifically, the common argument that applies to most companies (incl. Rumble), is that you're trading within that country if anyone from that country is either paying for your product/service, or making money from your product/service; and therefore you essentially need to function as (if not actually legally have) a per-country corporate subsidiary amenable to the laws of that country, if you want to continue doing that. I think an equally valid (and frankly more reasonable) interpretation is that if anyone from another country is paying for your product/service, then they're trading within _your_ country. If in doing so they contravene laws of _their_ country (e.g., forbidden speech, taxes, etc.) then that's their problem, not yours. This interpretation has the advantage of actually being enforceable, unlike the alternative. And if a country doesn't like that then they're free to "protect" their citizens by building a Great Firewall, which is _totally and only_ for their people's benefit.
darth_avocado 3y ago
Yes that is how it works. If you want your website to be available in a country, you need to follow local laws. Otherwise, they can shut you down. It is different in terms of enforcement for someone running a server in their apartment and a corporation. And it depends on the law broken. If you’re running a piracy server in Haiti, the US government can decide they want to shut you down. But if it’s something minor, the government will just ignore you. Companies are different because they’re easier to target when it comes to enforcement.
- Zak 3y ago
  > If you want your website to be available in a country Well sure, if Brazil wants to build the Great Firewall of Brazil, they can do so.
  - throwawaysugar 3y ago
    False dichotomy. The choices aren't "100% open" or "great firewall of $country". This happens all the time in every country.
  - darth_avocado 3y ago
    Reminder, that this was in response to the Supreme Court of Brazil ordering this platform to remove certain users. They don’t need to build a firewall, this can be dealt with using international treaties and laws. US government often cracks down on websites that break US law without building a firewall. There are other levers to doing it. Also, they don’t need a firewall, ISPs can block domain names (which the courts can force them to since they operate in the country) very easily and is used across the world.
    - Zak 3y ago
      I would include ordering blocking by local ISPs in "build a firewall". It seems what has happened here is Rumble is doing the blocking. A mechanism existing by which Brazil can force a company with no presence in Brazil to block access to web content strikes me as problematic. Of course when a company is trying to do business in a country, it needs relationships with local companies, access to banking and payment infrastructure, etc... and governments can certainly prevent those from doing business with it. It doesn't sound like that's the issue here though. If there is a mechanism by which the government of Brazil can force a company based in the USA or Canada to block visitors to its website, I would like to know the details so I can advocate that the USA withdraw from the relevant treaty. I'd apply the same logic to the USA trying to force foreign websites to shut down or block visitors from the USA.
friend_and_foe 3y ago
Yep, I miss the days where websites said "you want to keep your citizens from accessing our site, get fucked, do it yourself, build a great firewall because we don't have to enforce your laws for you" but those days are long gone since Facebook and Google created a precedent of doing it to keep foreign markets. It's unfortunate but this is the new status quo.
- philwelch 3y ago
  The problem is that these sites are supported by advertising and if you can’t collect ad revenue in a country, you might as well not even let them access the site.
- figassis 3y ago
  Why not do it the way Binance/Coinbase did it? Block the country and subtly hint at customers to use a VPN.
- benf76 3y ago
  Gab.com takes this approach today
  - smegsicle 3y ago
    wasn't that the place that protested themselves off aws, mastadon, twitter, and even fdroid? sounds scarier than 4chan
    - whatwhaaaaat 3y ago
      I’ve never been to gab so I can’t say exactly what their content is but I do have a memory longer than a goldfish and I can firmly say that you are not being truthful. Gab was kicked off those platforms for not touting the “party” line on the covid shot, trans stuff, and other social hot button issues.
    - pridkett 3y ago
      gab.com was kicked off GoDaddy, not AWS. https://www.thewrap.com/far-right-social-network-gab-back-online-after-finding-new-host/ https://www.thewrap.com/far-right-social-network-gab-back-on...
TylerE 3y ago
Yet people here routinely make that argument to say that US companies should be bound by whatever parts of GDPR that poster finds convenient... I've asked essentially this same question several times of those people and never gotten more than vague handwaving in response.
- midasuni 3y ago
  If a US company wants to do business in the EU it must follow EU laws. If a Brazilian country wants to do business in the US it must follow US laws.
  - TylerE 3y ago
    Define "wants to do business in the EU". If a US-based and targeted site gets one single visitor from the EU, are they now "doing business" there? Your reply is eactly the sort of vague handwaving about.
    - baobun 3y ago
      Generally, no. It's more about (for example) selling ads to EU companies. The narrative is about EU users but the leverage is via the EU advertisement business.
midasuni 3y ago
Sam’s pizzas in Albany don’t have to do anything with Brazilian law. However if it wants to do business in Brazil it has to follow those laws. I don’t do business in North Korea so I’m not interested in upholding their law. I do do business in France so I have to obey their laws. There tends to just be one country which holds its domestic laws as relevant to people not doing business in their country.

by Zak 3y ago

tibbydudeza 3y ago

A court order would have forced all Brazilian ISP's or the international peering operators on Brazilian soil to block it - Rumble simply pre-empted it to make drama around free speech.

claytongulick 3y ago
> to make drama around free speech. I remember when free speech was an ideal that was universally recognized as crucial to a functioning democracy. "Making drama" by refusing to participate in a censorship program strikes me as admirable. What a strange world we live in where so many people sneer at the concept of free exchange and the marketplace of ideas, and those that seek to support it.
- midasuni 3y ago
  I don’t. I remember when every country and society have different views on freedom of speech and where the limits are.
  - tibbydudeza 3y ago
    US concepts are NOT universal - in South Africa we have strong laws against racist hate speech - call somebody a local slur for black person (k word) here you going to get prosecuted and fined and perhaps even jail never mind being dragged on social media. We call it "crimen injuria" in our laws - right to dignity is defined in our constitution and frankly this has NO place in our society considering our history.
  - claytongulick 3y ago
    You don't remember when free speech was an ideal for democratic societies? You must live in a very different world than I do. "the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom." - John Locke
    - midasuni 3y ago
      Certainly never been in the US. The US decides holocaust denial is fine, but saying “I’m going to kill the President” isn’t. Other countries have different views. The US is happy to arrest people who work for companies who disagree with US limits on free speech who happen to visit the US (Skylarov), and even to use its economic might to get other countries to uphold its anti free speech agenda (Kim Dot Com)
      - claytongulick 3y ago
        So, because we fail to meet it, the ideal isn't valuable?
    - tibbydudeza 3y ago
      Not absolute free speech - there are limits.

derefr 3y ago

> If countries are allowed to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction, anyone running a website might need to know and obey the laws of nearly 200 countries. Yes, that's how it works. Specifically, the common argument that applies to most companies (incl. Rumble), is that you're trading within that country if anyone from that country is either paying for your product/service, or making money from your product/service; and therefore you essentially need to function as (if not actually legally have) a per-country corporate subsidiary amenable to the laws of that country, if you want to continue doing that. And sometimes it's even worse; for at least the US and Canada, companies trading with people living in these countries have to know and follow the laws of the state or province their customers live in, when serving those customers. These are mostly simple things like tax codes, yes; but sometimes it's things that are far more arcane — for example, Quebec prohibits promotional first-period pricing that automatically transitions into regular pricing (they consider this a predatory practice.) Companies that advertise promitions in Canada often have fine print that says "offer not valid in Quebec" because of this. This tangled mess of required region-specific logic is, by and large, the moat of e-commerce platforms and payment processors. It's why even large e-commerce services like Steam, that build all this logic internally for most countries, will still integrate with payment processors like Stripe or PayPal — those services are made options to cover the long-tail of countries they don't want to learn and maintain regional rules for. It's also why many companies don't bother to actually sell into every market; and instead allow companies that specialize in "partnering with foreign companies to sell their products into our own domestic market that we understand well" — a.k.a. importers — to do that for them (and skim off some of their margin in the process.)

piotrkaminski 3y ago
> Yes, that's how it works. Specifically, the common argument that applies to most companies (incl. Rumble), is that you're trading within that country if anyone from that country is either paying for your product/service, or making money from your product/service; and therefore you essentially need to function as (if not actually legally have) a per-country corporate subsidiary amenable to the laws of that country, if you want to continue doing that. I think an equally valid (and frankly more reasonable) interpretation is that if anyone from another country is paying for your product/service, then they're trading within _your_ country. If in doing so they contravene laws of _their_ country (e.g., forbidden speech, taxes, etc.) then that's their problem, not yours. This interpretation has the advantage of actually being enforceable, unlike the alternative. And if a country doesn't like that then they're free to "protect" their citizens by building a Great Firewall, which is _totally and only_ for their people's benefit.

darth_avocado 3y ago

Yes that is how it works. If you want your website to be available in a country, you need to follow local laws. Otherwise, they can shut you down. It is different in terms of enforcement for someone running a server in their apartment and a corporation. And it depends on the law broken. If you’re running a piracy server in Haiti, the US government can decide they want to shut you down. But if it’s something minor, the government will just ignore you. Companies are different because they’re easier to target when it comes to enforcement.

Zak 3y ago
> If you want your website to be available in a country Well sure, if Brazil wants to build the Great Firewall of Brazil, they can do so.
- throwawaysugar 3y ago
  False dichotomy. The choices aren't "100% open" or "great firewall of $country". This happens all the time in every country.
- darth_avocado 3y ago
  Reminder, that this was in response to the Supreme Court of Brazil ordering this platform to remove certain users. They don’t need to build a firewall, this can be dealt with using international treaties and laws. US government often cracks down on websites that break US law without building a firewall. There are other levers to doing it. Also, they don’t need a firewall, ISPs can block domain names (which the courts can force them to since they operate in the country) very easily and is used across the world.
  - Zak 3y ago
    I would include ordering blocking by local ISPs in "build a firewall". It seems what has happened here is Rumble is doing the blocking. A mechanism existing by which Brazil can force a company with no presence in Brazil to block access to web content strikes me as problematic. Of course when a company is trying to do business in a country, it needs relationships with local companies, access to banking and payment infrastructure, etc... and governments can certainly prevent those from doing business with it. It doesn't sound like that's the issue here though. If there is a mechanism by which the government of Brazil can force a company based in the USA or Canada to block visitors to its website, I would like to know the details so I can advocate that the USA withdraw from the relevant treaty. I'd apply the same logic to the USA trying to force foreign websites to shut down or block visitors from the USA.

friend_and_foe 3y ago

Yep, I miss the days where websites said "you want to keep your citizens from accessing our site, get fucked, do it yourself, build a great firewall because we don't have to enforce your laws for you" but those days are long gone since Facebook and Google created a precedent of doing it to keep foreign markets. It's unfortunate but this is the new status quo.

philwelch 3y ago
The problem is that these sites are supported by advertising and if you can’t collect ad revenue in a country, you might as well not even let them access the site.
figassis 3y ago
Why not do it the way Binance/Coinbase did it? Block the country and subtly hint at customers to use a VPN.
benf76 3y ago
Gab.com takes this approach today
- smegsicle 3y ago
  wasn't that the place that protested themselves off aws, mastadon, twitter, and even fdroid? sounds scarier than 4chan
  - whatwhaaaaat 3y ago
    I’ve never been to gab so I can’t say exactly what their content is but I do have a memory longer than a goldfish and I can firmly say that you are not being truthful. Gab was kicked off those platforms for not touting the “party” line on the covid shot, trans stuff, and other social hot button issues.
  - pridkett 3y ago
    gab.com was kicked off GoDaddy, not AWS. https://www.thewrap.com/far-right-social-network-gab-back-online-after-finding-new-host/ https://www.thewrap.com/far-right-social-network-gab-back-on...

TylerE 3y ago

Yet people here routinely make that argument to say that US companies should be bound by whatever parts of GDPR that poster finds convenient... I've asked essentially this same question several times of those people and never gotten more than vague handwaving in response.

midasuni 3y ago
If a US company wants to do business in the EU it must follow EU laws. If a Brazilian country wants to do business in the US it must follow US laws.
- TylerE 3y ago
  Define "wants to do business in the EU". If a US-based and targeted site gets one single visitor from the EU, are they now "doing business" there? Your reply is eactly the sort of vague handwaving about.
  - baobun 3y ago
    Generally, no. It's more about (for example) selling ads to EU companies. The narrative is about EU users but the leverage is via the EU advertisement business.

midasuni 3y ago

Sam’s pizzas in Albany don’t have to do anything with Brazilian law. However if it wants to do business in Brazil it has to follow those laws. I don’t do business in North Korea so I’m not interested in upholding their law. I do do business in France so I have to obey their laws. There tends to just be one country which holds its domestic laws as relevant to people not doing business in their country.