4 ms·

Any physical business has to deal with 100s of regulations too, it just means the same culture of making it extremely difficult and expensive to do anything at

Any physical business has to deal with 100s of regulations too, it just means the same culture of making it extremely difficult and expensive to do anything at all is now coming to the online world as well, bit by bit.

sixothree 1y ago
Right. But if I open a physical business I only need to abide by the laws of that state. This is definitely an order of magnitude more regulation to deal with. But yeah, this definitely sounds like a business opportunity for services or hosts.
- Towaway69 1y ago
  > definitely sounds like a business opportunity for services or hosts. Capitalism at its best. We have a definite problem with over-regulation and a judicial system that isn't coping nor keeping up. Capitalism, instead of fixing the problem, makes a business model out of it. Capitalism: Why fix it when you can make money of it.
kragen 1y ago
Websites aren't necessarily businesses; they're speech.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- TGower 1y ago
  A blog is speech, but I wouldn't say that deciding to operate a social media site is speech. That said, there are plenty of good reasons to oppose this law.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    A social media site is speech (and/or press, but they are grouped together in the first amendment because they are lenses on the same fundamental right not crisply distinguishable ones); now, its well recognized that commercial speech is still subject to some regulations as commerce, but it is not something separate from speech.
    - TGower 1y ago
      I would disagree, for example section 230 reads "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The content of the site is obviously speech/press, but the decision to operate the site doesn't seem like it is. Very possible I'm mistaken and there is case law to the contrary though, it's a nuanced argument either way
      - dragonwriter 1y ago
        Not sure why you cite Section 230 as if it had anything to say about what is Constitutionally speech; other than inverting the relation between the Constitution and statute law, that is a pretty big misunderstanding of what Section 230 is (and the broader Communication Decency Act in which it was contained was) about.
        TGower 1y ago
        > A social media site is speech (and/or press I suppose this is what confused me then, as it seemed obvious that e.g. the Facebook reccomendation algorithm isn't speech, so if a social media site would be considered speech it would be due to the user content. Section 230 doesn't in any way supercede the constitution, but it does clarify which party is doing the speech and thus where the first ammendment would apply.
        dragonwriter 1y ago
        > Section 230 doesn't in any way supercede the constitution, but it does clarify which party is doing the speech No, it immunizes certain parties from being held automatically liable (without separate proof that they knew of the content, as applies to mere distributors [0]), the "publisher or speaker" standard being the standard for such liability (known as publisher liability.) It doesn't "clarify" (or have any bearing on) where the First Amendment would apply. (In fact, its only relevant when the First Amendment protection doesn't apply, since otherwise there would be no liability to address.) [0] subsequent case law has also held that Section 230 has the effect of also insulating the parties it covers against distributor liability where that would otherwise apply, as well, but the language of the law was deliberately targeted at the basis for publisher liability.
  - kragen 1y ago
    Speech isn't just shouting into the void; it's dialogue back and forth between two or more different people. Social media sites such as Hacker News and the WELL facilitate this, even when they aren't businesses, in much the same way as a dinner party or a church picnic does.
    - TGower 1y ago
      Sure, speech happens on and is facilitated by social media sites, but that doesn't imply that operating a social media site is a form of speech any more than operating a notebook factory is.
      - kragen 1y ago
        If having a dinner party at your house gets you busted by the police, you are not living in a liberal society. If notebook factories are under tight surveillance to ensure that their notebooks are serialized and tracked because bad people might use them to plot crimes, you are not living in a liberal society.
        TGower 1y ago
        I agree, there are better grounds to oppose such measures than "this violates the notebook factory owner's freedom of speech" though.
        kragen 1y ago
        No, it violates the potential notebook buyers' freedom of speech. The factory owner's freedoms don't come into it.
        TGower 1y ago
        Sounds like we are in agreement then, the root of this was >A blog is speech, but I wouldn't say that deciding to operate a social media site is speech.
gr4vityWall 1y ago
> Any physical business Websites don't have to be a business or be related to one.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
saati 1y ago
But the jurisdiction is obvious, and it doesn't change just because someone from Mississippi walked in.
trymas 1y ago
If you have a restaurant in Italy and some 18 year old from Mississippi orders a glass of wine - you can happily and lawfully serve it. You don’t need to know all the laws of Mississippi to serve such customer, or any laws from anywhere else other than Italy.
- sugarpimpdorsey 1y ago
  Tbf the Italian restaurant would likely serve you wine if you were 14, and the owner is probably underreporting cash earnings to avoid taxes, and sells bootleg cigarettes without the tax seals from behind the counter...
  - swiftcoder 1y ago
    Indeed - the same here in Spain. One gets used to certain classes of regulation being flaunted much more openly in Europe than they would be in the US.
- dudefeliciano 1y ago
  how would US jurisdiction be able to affect an Italian website that does not require ID for Missisipi residents?
  - silverliver 1y ago
    It wouldn't unless the US is willing to justify having their domestic companies fall under the jurisdiction of other countries. Geopolitical reciprocity is still alive an well as the US is starting to find out.
- Certhas 1y ago
  If you ship the wine to the US things are different though. And if you don't do business in the US there is only so much the US can do. Most importantly it can ask ISPs in the US to block your site. As they do for copyright infringement routinely. We have all accepted that our countries block copyright violations originating from outside their jurisdiction. But of course this is a disaster for the free internet. While copyright laws are relatively uniform world wide, so if you respect it locally you're probably mostly fine everywhere, incoming regulation like age verification and limits on social media use, or harassment stuff, is anything but uniform. To some degree this is also maybe more shocking to people in the US, as the US norms have de facto been the internets norms so far. It is, in any case, not entirely new: "When Germany came after BME for "endangering the youth" and demanded that I make changes to the site to comply with German law, my response was to simply not visit Germany again (and I'm a German citizen). When the US started to pressure us, we moved all of our servers and presence out of the country and backed off on plans to live in the US. No changes were ever made to the site, and no images were ever removed — if anything, the pressure made me push those areas even more." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMEzine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMEzine How do we deal with the fact that we don't have a global mechanism for agreeing (socially and legally) on necessary regulations, whilemaintaining the social good that is a truly global internet?

sixothree 1y ago

Right. But if I open a physical business I only need to abide by the laws of that state. This is definitely an order of magnitude more regulation to deal with. But yeah, this definitely sounds like a business opportunity for services or hosts.

Towaway69 1y ago
> definitely sounds like a business opportunity for services or hosts. Capitalism at its best. We have a definite problem with over-regulation and a judicial system that isn't coping nor keeping up. Capitalism, instead of fixing the problem, makes a business model out of it. Capitalism: Why fix it when you can make money of it.

kragen 1y ago

Websites aren't necessarily businesses; they're speech.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
TGower 1y ago
A blog is speech, but I wouldn't say that deciding to operate a social media site is speech. That said, there are plenty of good reasons to oppose this law.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  A social media site is speech (and/or press, but they are grouped together in the first amendment because they are lenses on the same fundamental right not crisply distinguishable ones); now, its well recognized that commercial speech is still subject to some regulations as commerce, but it is not something separate from speech.
  - TGower 1y ago
    I would disagree, for example section 230 reads "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The content of the site is obviously speech/press, but the decision to operate the site doesn't seem like it is. Very possible I'm mistaken and there is case law to the contrary though, it's a nuanced argument either way
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      Not sure why you cite Section 230 as if it had anything to say about what is Constitutionally speech; other than inverting the relation between the Constitution and statute law, that is a pretty big misunderstanding of what Section 230 is (and the broader Communication Decency Act in which it was contained was) about.
      - TGower 1y ago
        > A social media site is speech (and/or press I suppose this is what confused me then, as it seemed obvious that e.g. the Facebook reccomendation algorithm isn't speech, so if a social media site would be considered speech it would be due to the user content. Section 230 doesn't in any way supercede the constitution, but it does clarify which party is doing the speech and thus where the first ammendment would apply.
        dragonwriter 1y ago
        > Section 230 doesn't in any way supercede the constitution, but it does clarify which party is doing the speech No, it immunizes certain parties from being held automatically liable (without separate proof that they knew of the content, as applies to mere distributors [0]), the "publisher or speaker" standard being the standard for such liability (known as publisher liability.) It doesn't "clarify" (or have any bearing on) where the First Amendment would apply. (In fact, its only relevant when the First Amendment protection doesn't apply, since otherwise there would be no liability to address.) [0] subsequent case law has also held that Section 230 has the effect of also insulating the parties it covers against distributor liability where that would otherwise apply, as well, but the language of the law was deliberately targeted at the basis for publisher liability.
- kragen 1y ago
  Speech isn't just shouting into the void; it's dialogue back and forth between two or more different people. Social media sites such as Hacker News and the WELL facilitate this, even when they aren't businesses, in much the same way as a dinner party or a church picnic does.
  - TGower 1y ago
    Sure, speech happens on and is facilitated by social media sites, but that doesn't imply that operating a social media site is a form of speech any more than operating a notebook factory is.
    - kragen 1y ago
      If having a dinner party at your house gets you busted by the police, you are not living in a liberal society. If notebook factories are under tight surveillance to ensure that their notebooks are serialized and tracked because bad people might use them to plot crimes, you are not living in a liberal society.
      - TGower 1y ago
        I agree, there are better grounds to oppose such measures than "this violates the notebook factory owner's freedom of speech" though.
        kragen 1y ago
        No, it violates the potential notebook buyers' freedom of speech. The factory owner's freedoms don't come into it.
        TGower 1y ago
        Sounds like we are in agreement then, the root of this was >A blog is speech, but I wouldn't say that deciding to operate a social media site is speech.

gr4vityWall 1y ago

> Any physical business Websites don't have to be a business or be related to one.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

saati 1y ago

But the jurisdiction is obvious, and it doesn't change just because someone from Mississippi walked in.

trymas 1y ago

If you have a restaurant in Italy and some 18 year old from Mississippi orders a glass of wine - you can happily and lawfully serve it. You don’t need to know all the laws of Mississippi to serve such customer, or any laws from anywhere else other than Italy.

sugarpimpdorsey 1y ago
Tbf the Italian restaurant would likely serve you wine if you were 14, and the owner is probably underreporting cash earnings to avoid taxes, and sells bootleg cigarettes without the tax seals from behind the counter...
- swiftcoder 1y ago
  Indeed - the same here in Spain. One gets used to certain classes of regulation being flaunted much more openly in Europe than they would be in the US.
dudefeliciano 1y ago
how would US jurisdiction be able to affect an Italian website that does not require ID for Missisipi residents?
- silverliver 1y ago
  It wouldn't unless the US is willing to justify having their domestic companies fall under the jurisdiction of other countries. Geopolitical reciprocity is still alive an well as the US is starting to find out.
Certhas 1y ago
If you ship the wine to the US things are different though. And if you don't do business in the US there is only so much the US can do. Most importantly it can ask ISPs in the US to block your site. As they do for copyright infringement routinely. We have all accepted that our countries block copyright violations originating from outside their jurisdiction. But of course this is a disaster for the free internet. While copyright laws are relatively uniform world wide, so if you respect it locally you're probably mostly fine everywhere, incoming regulation like age verification and limits on social media use, or harassment stuff, is anything but uniform. To some degree this is also maybe more shocking to people in the US, as the US norms have de facto been the internets norms so far. It is, in any case, not entirely new: "When Germany came after BME for "endangering the youth" and demanded that I make changes to the site to comply with German law, my response was to simply not visit Germany again (and I'm a German citizen). When the US started to pressure us, we moved all of our servers and presence out of the country and backed off on plans to live in the US. No changes were ever made to the site, and no images were ever removed — if anything, the pressure made me push those areas even more." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMEzine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMEzine How do we deal with the fact that we don't have a global mechanism for agreeing (socially and legally) on necessary regulations, whilemaintaining the social good that is a truly global internet?