3 ms·

Something similar already happened with a censorship demand made by India: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/twitter-takes-down-post-on-home-minister-globa

Something similar already happened with a censorship demand made by India: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/twitter-takes-down-post-on-home-minister-globally/article66711854.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/twitter-takes-down-po... The difference being that when a country of 1.4 billion asked Twitter to jump, Twitter asked "how high?"

legostormtroopr 3y ago
The difference here is India demanded the tweets be blocked in India. I don't agree with that, but they are enforcing Indian laws for Indian citizens within India. The Australian government is demanding tweets be blocked for Australians everywhere, including Australian's using VPNs or Australians overseas - effectively claiming that Australian law has jurisdiction globally, and turning this into a global censorship demand. Thats why the EFF has stepped in. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/05/business/twitter-india-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/05/business/twitter-india-la...
- jsheard 3y ago
  Read the article again, the Tweets in question were blocked everywhere in response to a legal demand, and to my knowledge no explanation was ever given. They appeared to be blocked using the mechanism that is normally used to enforce country-specific block requests, but in that case the country was set to "Worldwide".
- verve_rat 3y ago
  And the US applies its tax laws to all US citizens worldwide and coerces foreign financial institutions into compliance.
  - SllX 3y ago
    We (in the US) should be bringing out the pitchforks for this nonsense but I have never seen another American not living overseas care in the slightest.
techjamie 3y ago
They also know Australia isn't petty enough to ban Twitter over a video. Now India on the other hand? They absolutely are that petty because they're profitable as hell and they know it, so they can get what they want.

legostormtroopr 3y ago

The difference here is India demanded the tweets be blocked in India. I don't agree with that, but they are enforcing Indian laws for Indian citizens within India. The Australian government is demanding tweets be blocked for Australians everywhere, including Australian's using VPNs or Australians overseas - effectively claiming that Australian law has jurisdiction globally, and turning this into a global censorship demand. Thats why the EFF has stepped in. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/05/business/twitter-india-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/05/business/twitter-india-la...

jsheard 3y ago
Read the article again, the Tweets in question were blocked everywhere in response to a legal demand, and to my knowledge no explanation was ever given. They appeared to be blocked using the mechanism that is normally used to enforce country-specific block requests, but in that case the country was set to "Worldwide".
verve_rat 3y ago
And the US applies its tax laws to all US citizens worldwide and coerces foreign financial institutions into compliance.
- SllX 3y ago
  We (in the US) should be bringing out the pitchforks for this nonsense but I have never seen another American not living overseas care in the slightest.

techjamie 3y ago

They also know Australia isn't petty enough to ban Twitter over a video. Now India on the other hand? They absolutely are that petty because they're profitable as hell and they know it, so they can get what they want.