4 ms·
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 Ind
by legostormtroopr 2y 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 2y agoRead 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 2y agoAnd the US applies its tax laws to all US citizens worldwide and coerces foreign financial institutions into compliance.
- SllX 2y agoWe (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.