3 ms·

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 differ

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.

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.