3 ms·

It’s an interesting question, because effectively if there is no authority that can ban content from the internet, it means that nothing can be removed from the

It’s an interesting question, because effectively if there is no authority that can ban content from the internet, it means that nothing can be removed from the internet. Consider censorship that most people would agree with such as revenge porn. If no country can remove it then it is essentially unremovable, while most people think that it should be removed. But when any country limits something that we feel should not be censored then no one wants there is this backlack like in this case. It’s hard to determine the correct choice.

vkou 2y ago
The correct choice is easy. Each country is free to set whatever media laws it wants, by whatever political process it does so. If any particular transnational doesn't want to comply with them, it's free to sod off. If what they provided is valuable, some domestic competitor who is in legal compliance can take over the market.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  Exactly. Sadly, people who elect authoritarian governments will get the attendant speech laws.
Zak 2y ago
The jurisdiction where content is hosted has the legal ability to remove it. A multinational company with a presence in a jurisdiction can also be ordered to prevent access within that jurisdiction to content it hosts elsewhere to the best of its ability. That does create a dilemma for a country that wants to prevent its citizens from accessing content hosted by a company without a presence there. Their only real option is a great firewall of X.
- vkou 2y ago
  > That does create a dilemma for a country that wants to prevent its citizens from accessing content hosted by a company without a presence there. Their only real option is a great firewall of X. Which is fine. If I have no business relationship with anyone in country X, if I am not present in country X, I do not intend to ever travel to country X, and I am not hosting my stuff in country X, I don't give two figs about their laws. They are free to block me if they want, with whatever mechanism (fine-tuned, or crude) they want - but I'm not responsible for my http server responding to GET and POST requests from their country (Unless my country has embargoed them), just like an author is not responsible for a citizen of X reading their books (That are banned in X.) This is just basic state sovereignty stuff.

vkou 2y ago

The correct choice is easy. Each country is free to set whatever media laws it wants, by whatever political process it does so. If any particular transnational doesn't want to comply with them, it's free to sod off. If what they provided is valuable, some domestic competitor who is in legal compliance can take over the market.

robertlagrant 2y ago
Exactly. Sadly, people who elect authoritarian governments will get the attendant speech laws.

Zak 2y ago

The jurisdiction where content is hosted has the legal ability to remove it. A multinational company with a presence in a jurisdiction can also be ordered to prevent access within that jurisdiction to content it hosts elsewhere to the best of its ability. That does create a dilemma for a country that wants to prevent its citizens from accessing content hosted by a company without a presence there. Their only real option is a great firewall of X.

vkou 2y ago
> That does create a dilemma for a country that wants to prevent its citizens from accessing content hosted by a company without a presence there. Their only real option is a great firewall of X. Which is fine. If I have no business relationship with anyone in country X, if I am not present in country X, I do not intend to ever travel to country X, and I am not hosting my stuff in country X, I don't give two figs about their laws. They are free to block me if they want, with whatever mechanism (fine-tuned, or crude) they want - but I'm not responsible for my http server responding to GET and POST requests from their country (Unless my country has embargoed them), just like an author is not responsible for a citizen of X reading their books (That are banned in X.) This is just basic state sovereignty stuff.