4 ms·
I think this "problem" stems directly from the fact that the geographic model of governments is extremely unsuited for governing on the internet. In times past
by miki123211 2y ago
I think this "problem" stems directly from the fact that the geographic model of governments is extremely unsuited for governing on the internet.
In times past, Governments could e.g. regulate the quality of coke, control election misinformation or forbid burglaries on their own soil, because they had law enforcement who could imprison people doing these things against the law. What happened outside of their borders was mostly of no concern to them.
If Coca Cola wanted to sell their products in Germany, they needed people in Germany willing to sell it, and those people were directly vulnerable to imprisonment by German law enforcement, so they had to care about and follow German law. Even if the original corporation wasn't involved directly, there were always vendors, importers, store owners and such, and all of them could be targeted to some extend.
Tech companies are different, you can make a product on the internet that interacts with the data of the majority of German citizens, without ever stepping foot in Germany or even realizing that a country called Germany exists and has laws. If Germany doesn't like the fact that this product exists, there isn't much they can do.
For now, most countries still have some semblance of control, usually backed by the power of international treaties, DNS blocking and control over payment infrastructure, but I wouldn't be surprised if the prevalence of fast and affordable satellite internet on one hand and easier access to crypto on the other will make the situation even worse.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoHuh? Germany is notorious for banning, restricting, or altering, a huge number of tech products from smartphones to video games, with practically perfect compliance after a valid court order is issued. Do you have some examples of non-compliance?
- ggm 2y agoCrypto in modems, and mp3s
- MichaelZuo 2y agoAre there any recent examples, in the past decade?
- latency-guy2 2y agoI would generally agree - but effectively, government does have control of the internet, at least the cables that run underground in their portion of the world, and even moreso the bits and bytes that travel along those wires that travel into and out of their territory. Wireless and satellite shoots a rather big hole in that ownership model, but not completely, the concept of air space is a thing, as well as maritime. Things get muddy when you extend out into space of course, but most internet is distributed by wire + signals on the ground rather than from satellite, might not be able to argue that to much of an extent. Then there's the arguability of whether or not government(s) own their people - I think governments today worldwide truly believe in that position wholeheartedly. I certainly don't think they do, and government(s) ought to think twice about that position if you were to ask me.
- caskstrength 2y ago> For now, most countries still have some semblance of control, usually backed by the power of international treaties, DNS blocking and control over payment infrastructure, but I wouldn't be surprised if the prevalence of fast and affordable satellite internet on one hand and easier access to crypto on the other will make the situation even worse. What exact scenario are you envisioning here? Germany bans X (for example), but people smuggle Starlink terminals to continue reading it and advertisers continue advertising to them illegally by paying with crypto? Sounds extremely unrealistic to me TBH.