6 ms·

I don't know Nepal's political situation, but I could imagine companies not wanting to have a potential hostage that they're directly responsible for in more au

by gman83 1y ago

I don't know Nepal's political situation, but I could imagine companies not wanting to have a potential hostage that they're directly responsible for in more authoritarian countries. Why does there have to be a contact in the country? Couldn't they have a contact outside the country?

aucisson_masque 1y ago
how to you prosecute a company that isn't represented in your country ? and how do you get someone, I mean a person, in front of court ? As far as I know, Nepal can't send its police to America to arrest Facebook CEO and bring him back. Let's just pretend for a second: Meta deliberately allows pedophiles to organize themselves and abduct Nepalese kids. Nepal government can only publicly object, eventually block Facebook access and that's all ? Nepalese wouldn't be very happy about that. I am surprised there are even countries where these big corporations don't already have legal representation. It's not like it's expensive compared to what they earn from Nepalese.
MangoToupe 1y ago
How else can these companies be compelled to follow local laws?
boringg 1y ago
I would have to imagine that Nepal wants to protect its population from getting too much content from India - they would easily be overrun.
rmccue 1y ago
This tends to be the case for these sorts of regulations, so that if necessary they have a representative who can be pulled into court to answer for violations. For example, the GDPR requires an authorised European representative.
diggan 1y ago
> Why does there have to be a contact in the country? Couldn't they have a contact outside the country? How would that work? They obviously want someone to be inside the country, having to follow the country's laws, in case the companies decide (again) to break the laws. If the companies don't want to have people on the ground that are liable to the law and regulations of said country, then stop offering services there.
- Ukv 1y ago
  If it's just meant to be a contact point/grievance handler, I don't see much issue with them being in another country. If they're meant to be "held accountable" as leverage to ensure the company's compliance ("delete this politically inconvenient content worldwide or your local employees will never see their families again"), then it seems fairly understandable why social media sites would be reluctant to give that leverage - particularly for cases like this where the bill in question seems fairly restrictive (including imprisonment for using an anonymous identity). > If the companies don't want to have people on the ground that are liable to the law and regulations of said country, then stop offering services there. If I want to run a Mastodon instance (which is blocked by this), do I need to hire an employee/representative for every country in the world? I'd rather just keep the maximum leverage most countries have as being to block the site if they don't like it.
  - andypiper 1y ago
    Nepal seems to have no shortage of people willing to take money to act as a local representative. I've seen quite a few such offers recently.
  - diggan 1y ago
    > If they're meant to be "held accountable" as leverage to ensure the company's compliance ("delete this politically inconvenient content worldwide or your local employees will never see their families again"), Yeah, of course, similarly if US decides that they need people on the ground so they could execute them in a CIA blacksite in case they commit crimes. But obviously that's way too much, same for Nepal, not sure why you're immediately jumping to kidnapping, rather than "So a person can be put in front of a court". > If I want to run a Mastodon instance (which is blocked by this), do I need to hire an employee/representative for every country in the world? If you want to operate a service at scale, which you gain profits from, in another country than where you live, it's fairly common to have some sort of representative in that country, one way or another. Usually it's ignored when the scale is small, but once you reach the size of Facebook, I think it's expected that you get some representative in the countries where you operate, yeah. > I'd rather just keep the maximum leverage most countries have as being to block the site if they don't like it. Exactly what we saw happen right here :) Ignore the laws, get blocked, then the companies can decide if they wanna start operating again by following local laws, or exit the country.
analog31 1y ago
I've read about similar requirements for physical products licensed in Europe, and my understanding is that businesses have sprung up to provide "representative as a service" to whoever needs it. So you don't need to have your own boots on the ground, just hire a local boots-provider.
mastazi 1y ago
this is a list of Google offices. Some of these are in countries that are classified as not free according to most democracy indexes. https://about.google/company-info/locations/ https://about.google/company-info/locations/ Same story with Facebook: https://www.metacareers.com/locations/ https://www.metacareers.com/locations/
- NaomiLehman 1y ago
  Even their HQ is in a country that is classified as a "flawed democracy," and might be classified as a "hybrid regime" in 2025 wink, wink
bee_rider 1y ago
Ultimately, whether or not we like it, most countries have some restrictions on speech. Countries want somebody in their jurisdiction to represent the company, for companies that want to do business there. We could say their (general hypothetical “they,” I have no idea what the laws of Nepal are like specifically) laws are bad, but apparently they are not bad enough that the social media companies aren’t willing to go there. IMO countries would be totally reasonable to demand that the moderation decisions for the citizens of their countries be made by people in-country, following their local laws, inside their jurisdiction. Countries are sovereign, not companies.
- JoshTriplett 1y ago
  > IMO countries would be totally reasonable to demand that the moderation decisions for the citizens of their countries be made by people in-country, following their local laws, inside their jurisdiction. Moderation decisions are not and should not be determined solely by what's legal. > Ultimately, whether or not we like it, most countries have some restrictions on speech. Countries want somebody in their jurisdiction to represent the company The former is an excellent reason to refuse the latter.
  - bee_rider 1y ago
    >> IMO countries would be totally reasonable to demand that the moderation decisions for the citizens of their countries be made by people in-country, following their local laws, inside their jurisdiction. > Moderation decisions are not and should not be determined solely by what's legal. For sure. Following the laws of the country you want to operate in is just the bare minimum. Additional considerations can be taken, of course. >> Ultimately, whether or not we like it, most countries have some restrictions on speech. Countries want somebody in their jurisdiction to represent the company > The former is an excellent reason to refuse the latter. This is where we are, the next step in this back-and-forth is that entities without any local representation get blocked.
    - JoshTriplett 1y ago
      > Following the laws of the country you want to operate in is just the bare minimum. Absolutely. Countries you operate in, meaning countries you actually employ people in and do business in and have a legal nexus in. Being accessible over the Internet is not "operating in" a country, even if that country might wish to claim otherwise.

by gman83 1y ago

aucisson_masque 1y ago

how to you prosecute a company that isn't represented in your country ? and how do you get someone, I mean a person, in front of court ? As far as I know, Nepal can't send its police to America to arrest Facebook CEO and bring him back. Let's just pretend for a second: Meta deliberately allows pedophiles to organize themselves and abduct Nepalese kids. Nepal government can only publicly object, eventually block Facebook access and that's all ? Nepalese wouldn't be very happy about that. I am surprised there are even countries where these big corporations don't already have legal representation. It's not like it's expensive compared to what they earn from Nepalese.

MangoToupe 1y ago

How else can these companies be compelled to follow local laws?

boringg 1y ago

I would have to imagine that Nepal wants to protect its population from getting too much content from India - they would easily be overrun.

rmccue 1y ago

This tends to be the case for these sorts of regulations, so that if necessary they have a representative who can be pulled into court to answer for violations. For example, the GDPR requires an authorised European representative.

diggan 1y ago

> Why does there have to be a contact in the country? Couldn't they have a contact outside the country? How would that work? They obviously want someone to be inside the country, having to follow the country's laws, in case the companies decide (again) to break the laws. If the companies don't want to have people on the ground that are liable to the law and regulations of said country, then stop offering services there.

Ukv 1y ago
If it's just meant to be a contact point/grievance handler, I don't see much issue with them being in another country. If they're meant to be "held accountable" as leverage to ensure the company's compliance ("delete this politically inconvenient content worldwide or your local employees will never see their families again"), then it seems fairly understandable why social media sites would be reluctant to give that leverage - particularly for cases like this where the bill in question seems fairly restrictive (including imprisonment for using an anonymous identity). > If the companies don't want to have people on the ground that are liable to the law and regulations of said country, then stop offering services there. If I want to run a Mastodon instance (which is blocked by this), do I need to hire an employee/representative for every country in the world? I'd rather just keep the maximum leverage most countries have as being to block the site if they don't like it.
- andypiper 1y ago
  Nepal seems to have no shortage of people willing to take money to act as a local representative. I've seen quite a few such offers recently.
- diggan 1y ago
  > If they're meant to be "held accountable" as leverage to ensure the company's compliance ("delete this politically inconvenient content worldwide or your local employees will never see their families again"), Yeah, of course, similarly if US decides that they need people on the ground so they could execute them in a CIA blacksite in case they commit crimes. But obviously that's way too much, same for Nepal, not sure why you're immediately jumping to kidnapping, rather than "So a person can be put in front of a court". > If I want to run a Mastodon instance (which is blocked by this), do I need to hire an employee/representative for every country in the world? If you want to operate a service at scale, which you gain profits from, in another country than where you live, it's fairly common to have some sort of representative in that country, one way or another. Usually it's ignored when the scale is small, but once you reach the size of Facebook, I think it's expected that you get some representative in the countries where you operate, yeah. > I'd rather just keep the maximum leverage most countries have as being to block the site if they don't like it. Exactly what we saw happen right here :) Ignore the laws, get blocked, then the companies can decide if they wanna start operating again by following local laws, or exit the country.

analog31 1y ago

I've read about similar requirements for physical products licensed in Europe, and my understanding is that businesses have sprung up to provide "representative as a service" to whoever needs it. So you don't need to have your own boots on the ground, just hire a local boots-provider.

mastazi 1y ago

this is a list of Google offices. Some of these are in countries that are classified as not free according to most democracy indexes. https://about.google/company-info/locations/ https://about.google/company-info/locations/ Same story with Facebook: https://www.metacareers.com/locations/ https://www.metacareers.com/locations/

NaomiLehman 1y ago
Even their HQ is in a country that is classified as a "flawed democracy," and might be classified as a "hybrid regime" in 2025 wink, wink

bee_rider 1y ago

Ultimately, whether or not we like it, most countries have some restrictions on speech. Countries want somebody in their jurisdiction to represent the company, for companies that want to do business there. We could say their (general hypothetical “they,” I have no idea what the laws of Nepal are like specifically) laws are bad, but apparently they are not bad enough that the social media companies aren’t willing to go there. IMO countries would be totally reasonable to demand that the moderation decisions for the citizens of their countries be made by people in-country, following their local laws, inside their jurisdiction. Countries are sovereign, not companies.

JoshTriplett 1y ago
> IMO countries would be totally reasonable to demand that the moderation decisions for the citizens of their countries be made by people in-country, following their local laws, inside their jurisdiction. Moderation decisions are not and should not be determined solely by what's legal. > Ultimately, whether or not we like it, most countries have some restrictions on speech. Countries want somebody in their jurisdiction to represent the company The former is an excellent reason to refuse the latter.
- bee_rider 1y ago
  >> IMO countries would be totally reasonable to demand that the moderation decisions for the citizens of their countries be made by people in-country, following their local laws, inside their jurisdiction. > Moderation decisions are not and should not be determined solely by what's legal. For sure. Following the laws of the country you want to operate in is just the bare minimum. Additional considerations can be taken, of course. >> Ultimately, whether or not we like it, most countries have some restrictions on speech. Countries want somebody in their jurisdiction to represent the company > The former is an excellent reason to refuse the latter. This is where we are, the next step in this back-and-forth is that entities without any local representation get blocked.
  - JoshTriplett 1y ago
    > Following the laws of the country you want to operate in is just the bare minimum. Absolutely. Countries you operate in, meaning countries you actually employ people in and do business in and have a legal nexus in. Being accessible over the Internet is not "operating in" a country, even if that country might wish to claim otherwise.