12 ms·

What you're describing is the end of the internet.

colechristensen 3y ago
It's really not. Facebook making money off of illegal activity conveniently hidden behind national borders is not the cornerstone of the Internet.
- thfuran 3y ago
  You think that argument stops at Facebook? Why won't it apply to the VPNs people use to get around the geofencing on Facebook, to all the other social media platforms, to all messaging services, and so on? Now you've blocked huge swaths of services and fragmented all the platforms.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I think, if The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was remade today, the quote would be: "…an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think social media is a pretty neat idea."
- Ekaros 3y ago
  So then ban Facebook. Problem solved. Start advocating this in congress now.
CJefferson 3y ago
Honestly, maybe it’s time to consider that. Saying “oh well, let’s give up on laws because the internet is worldwide and unlimited” doesn’t feel like a good choice to me.
- thfuran 3y ago
  Shutting down all the roads because criminals use them doesn't really make sense. Does the internet equivalent?
  - bikemore 3y ago
    We know how to pretty effectively police roads, but a surprising number of people here seem to think that any amount of internet regulation is impossible. If it's so harmful _and also_ difficult to police, then it's not unreasonable to ask how much death and destruction is too much, is it? Unless, of course, "it's so hard to regulate" is just a thought-terminating cliché because the SV set also benefits from lax internet laws. But I'm sure it can't be that, no...
  - nextlevelwizard 3y ago
    I mean we do cut off entire countries and their citizens from global markets and from traveling when they do shit like invading their sovereign neighbors and that is completely fine and even desirable. Why can’t we (morally) cut them off also from infecting our Internet? Fuck them. Fix your country then come back and we will reevaluate.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      > I mean we do cut off entire countries and their citizens from global markets and from traveling when they do shit like invading their sovereign neighbors and that is completely fine and even desirable. It's actually not completely fine. Sanctions are effectively an act of war, just instead of shooting people and risking your own troops, you have your enemy's civilian population starve and shoot each other. This can be justified in some situations, possibly like the one you refer to; but it's definitely not an action to take lightly. Ironically, in the originally proposed case of blocking Facebook, this is a bit of a "cut off your nose to spite your face" situation. How many small and medium businesses rely on Facebook as their main, or only, customer acquisition, communication and/or sales channel? For many countries, banning Facebook out of the blue would cause some serious economic issues and lead to plenty of actual suffering of innocent people. (And yes, businesses will adapt, but let's not forget that adaptation in nature only ever means that the survivors of a mass die-off have more resources to use to bounce back. And it's the "die-off" part that's actually the necessary part.)
      - nextlevelwizard 3y ago
ben_w 3y ago
They're describing a border. When I was a teen in the late 90s, the internet without borders was cool (until I wandered into trolls I didn't have the resilience to deal with), but very obviously not compatible with national sovereignty on what counted as "illegal". Now? Does any country today block zero domains? There's nearly 200 nations so I've never bothered to check, but my guess is all block something.
- thfuran 3y ago
  Not just a border, a closed border. That's not common except in times of war or extreme authoritarianism.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > order the carrier of the extortion messages to block the entire country Banning a company from doing business with a country is called "sanctions", not "war", and sanctions happen a lot.

It's really not. Facebook making money off of illegal activity conveniently hidden behind national borders is not the cornerstone of the Internet.

thfuran 3y ago
You think that argument stops at Facebook? Why won't it apply to the VPNs people use to get around the geofencing on Facebook, to all the other social media platforms, to all messaging services, and so on? Now you've blocked huge swaths of services and fragmented all the platforms.
- ben_w 3y ago
  I think, if The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was remade today, the quote would be: "…an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think social media is a pretty neat idea."
Ekaros 3y ago
So then ban Facebook. Problem solved. Start advocating this in congress now.

CJefferson 3y ago

Honestly, maybe it’s time to consider that. Saying “oh well, let’s give up on laws because the internet is worldwide and unlimited” doesn’t feel like a good choice to me.

thfuran 3y ago
Shutting down all the roads because criminals use them doesn't really make sense. Does the internet equivalent?
- bikemore 3y ago
  We know how to pretty effectively police roads, but a surprising number of people here seem to think that any amount of internet regulation is impossible. If it's so harmful _and also_ difficult to police, then it's not unreasonable to ask how much death and destruction is too much, is it? Unless, of course, "it's so hard to regulate" is just a thought-terminating cliché because the SV set also benefits from lax internet laws. But I'm sure it can't be that, no...
- nextlevelwizard 3y ago
  I mean we do cut off entire countries and their citizens from global markets and from traveling when they do shit like invading their sovereign neighbors and that is completely fine and even desirable. Why can’t we (morally) cut them off also from infecting our Internet? Fuck them. Fix your country then come back and we will reevaluate.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    > I mean we do cut off entire countries and their citizens from global markets and from traveling when they do shit like invading their sovereign neighbors and that is completely fine and even desirable. It's actually not completely fine. Sanctions are effectively an act of war, just instead of shooting people and risking your own troops, you have your enemy's civilian population starve and shoot each other. This can be justified in some situations, possibly like the one you refer to; but it's definitely not an action to take lightly. Ironically, in the originally proposed case of blocking Facebook, this is a bit of a "cut off your nose to spite your face" situation. How many small and medium businesses rely on Facebook as their main, or only, customer acquisition, communication and/or sales channel? For many countries, banning Facebook out of the blue would cause some serious economic issues and lead to plenty of actual suffering of innocent people. (And yes, businesses will adapt, but let's not forget that adaptation in nature only ever means that the survivors of a mass die-off have more resources to use to bounce back. And it's the "die-off" part that's actually the necessary part.)
    - nextlevelwizard 3y ago

ben_w 3y ago

They're describing a border. When I was a teen in the late 90s, the internet without borders was cool (until I wandered into trolls I didn't have the resilience to deal with), but very obviously not compatible with national sovereignty on what counted as "illegal". Now? Does any country today block zero domains? There's nearly 200 nations so I've never bothered to check, but my guess is all block something.

thfuran 3y ago
Not just a border, a closed border. That's not common except in times of war or extreme authoritarianism.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > order the carrier of the extortion messages to block the entire country Banning a company from doing business with a country is called "sanctions", not "war", and sanctions happen a lot.