5 ms·

How do you "pull out" of the UK if you are not a UK company, you are a US company, hosted in the US, and proxied by Fastly. There's nothing to do? You do not ne

How do you "pull out" of the UK if you are not a UK company, you are a US company, hosted in the US, and proxied by Fastly. There's nothing to do? You do not need to abide by UK laws, even if your website is accessible from there.

constantcrying 1y ago
The UK government does not care. The law applies no matter where you are hosted, where you are incorporated or who is proxiying you. >You do not need to abide by UK laws, even if your website is accessible from there. The UK government does not agree.
- ToucanLoucan 1y ago
  I suppose in their defense, culturally, the UK hasn't respected many borders apart from their own so this really isn't anything new. Zing aside, I'd be thrilled to see whatever prosecutor or litigator or whatever they call them over there bring a case against a US based company for hosting content in the US, geoblocking the UK, a UK resident using a VPN to bypass that block, and making the case that that is somehow the US company's fault.
  - mystraline 1y ago
    The UK also is trying the same stunt against 4Chan. The article is from a month ago, but the gears of "justice" rotate slowly: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyjq40vjl7o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyjq40vjl7o One thing to note is that UK government officials also seem to be masquerading and submitting reports to try to ToS these websites.
    - userbinator 1y ago
      The response from 4chan's lawyers sums it up: American citizens do not surrender our constitutional rights just because Ofcom sends us an e-mail
  - joe463369 1y ago
    > I suppose in their defense, culturally, the UK hasn't respected many borders apart from their own so this really isn't anything new. Did the US respect the borders of Hawaii?
    - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
      a) whataboutism isn't an argument b) if you expect me to defend in the slightest the US and it's own shady history regarding settler colonialism, rest assured, there is no risk of that.
      - joe463369 1y ago
        > whataboutism isn't an argument You weren't making an argument. You were repeating the tedious 'coloniser Brits' trope as a 'zing' in your words. I'm just reminding you that your shit stinks too.
- thewebguyd 1y ago
  But its still not the UK government's decision. They don't have sovereignty over other nations, as much as they'd like to think they do. All they can legally do is bitch and moan and order UK ISPs to block. There's no action they can legally take against Imgur.
  - weinzierl 1y ago
    The US does exert its laws extraterritorially when there is a sufficient nexus to US interests too. Why wouldn't the UK be allowed to do so?
    - tart-lemonade 1y ago
      The US also has outsized influence in this arena due to the USD being the world reserve currency. Which isn't to say that might makes right, but it's easier to get your way when you can dictate the terms by which banks and nations can interface with the global economy. The British pound doesn't have quite the same level of soft power, so it must be wielded more strategically to avoid completely losing that which it still possesses. I don't imagine going after Imgur would be a worthwhile exercise of that soft power.
    - iamnothere 1y ago
      The UK? How many divisions do they have? Why shouldn’t Russia be allowed to exert their laws extraterritorially? Or Mali? Or Sudan? Or the Iranians? Or China? Or Israel? What you’re asking for is the end of the internet, full stop.
      - phi0 1y ago
        They are! Russia has been fining Google increasingly insane amounts for blocking state media [1]. It's the company's prerogative of whether they want to have a legal entity falling under the country's jurisdiction and whether employees want to travel there and risk being held criminally liable. It's likely simpler to just block access to the country's IP ranges (or ignore!) and move on. [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxvnwkl5kgo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxvnwkl5kgo
layer8 1y ago
You are sending data into the UK, hence you have to abide by their laws regarding said data.
- patrickmay 1y ago
  As the owner of a U.S. based website, I am not sending data anywhere. Some people in the U.K. might request data and download it from my site. I'm not forcing it on them.
  - layer8 1y ago
    HTTP responses (website contents) are data that the web servers you are paying for are sending. People can’t download anything from your site without your servers sending the data. Nothing forces you to send that data when you receive an HTTP request. Indeed, geoblocking is a common way to prevent sending data to jurisdictions whose laws the sending of the data might be in violation of.
    - betaby 1y ago
      HTTP GET is pull, not push. The user is pulling data, not the server is pushing data. Government doesn't care though. It intentionally have chosen not to understand that detail.
      - layer8 1y ago
        It’s the server’s choice to send or not to send the data. The fact that the server is receiving a request for the data in no way implies that it has to obey it. If someone places an order for a product whose distribution violates a law, the distributor is still responsible for sending it. Someone selling drugs is still responsible even if the buyer requested the drug. Someone distributing unlicensed material is still responsible even when that material was specifically requested.
        betaby 1y ago
baobun 1y ago
It means to stop doing business there. For example selling ads targeting UK users to UK advertisers. London banking. Integrating with UK-based data-milking peers.
- prism56 1y ago
  So if a site doesn't monetise adult content. The UK can't impose fines? Only eventually force ISPs to block that site?

constantcrying 1y ago

The UK government does not care. The law applies no matter where you are hosted, where you are incorporated or who is proxiying you. >You do not need to abide by UK laws, even if your website is accessible from there. The UK government does not agree.

ToucanLoucan 1y ago
I suppose in their defense, culturally, the UK hasn't respected many borders apart from their own so this really isn't anything new. Zing aside, I'd be thrilled to see whatever prosecutor or litigator or whatever they call them over there bring a case against a US based company for hosting content in the US, geoblocking the UK, a UK resident using a VPN to bypass that block, and making the case that that is somehow the US company's fault.
- mystraline 1y ago
  The UK also is trying the same stunt against 4Chan. The article is from a month ago, but the gears of "justice" rotate slowly: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyjq40vjl7o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyjq40vjl7o One thing to note is that UK government officials also seem to be masquerading and submitting reports to try to ToS these websites.
  - userbinator 1y ago
    The response from 4chan's lawyers sums it up: American citizens do not surrender our constitutional rights just because Ofcom sends us an e-mail
- joe463369 1y ago
  > I suppose in their defense, culturally, the UK hasn't respected many borders apart from their own so this really isn't anything new. Did the US respect the borders of Hawaii?
  - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
    a) whataboutism isn't an argument b) if you expect me to defend in the slightest the US and it's own shady history regarding settler colonialism, rest assured, there is no risk of that.
    - joe463369 1y ago
      > whataboutism isn't an argument You weren't making an argument. You were repeating the tedious 'coloniser Brits' trope as a 'zing' in your words. I'm just reminding you that your shit stinks too.
thewebguyd 1y ago
But its still not the UK government's decision. They don't have sovereignty over other nations, as much as they'd like to think they do. All they can legally do is bitch and moan and order UK ISPs to block. There's no action they can legally take against Imgur.
- weinzierl 1y ago
  The US does exert its laws extraterritorially when there is a sufficient nexus to US interests too. Why wouldn't the UK be allowed to do so?
  - tart-lemonade 1y ago
    The US also has outsized influence in this arena due to the USD being the world reserve currency. Which isn't to say that might makes right, but it's easier to get your way when you can dictate the terms by which banks and nations can interface with the global economy. The British pound doesn't have quite the same level of soft power, so it must be wielded more strategically to avoid completely losing that which it still possesses. I don't imagine going after Imgur would be a worthwhile exercise of that soft power.
  - iamnothere 1y ago
    The UK? How many divisions do they have? Why shouldn’t Russia be allowed to exert their laws extraterritorially? Or Mali? Or Sudan? Or the Iranians? Or China? Or Israel? What you’re asking for is the end of the internet, full stop.
    - phi0 1y ago
      They are! Russia has been fining Google increasingly insane amounts for blocking state media [1]. It's the company's prerogative of whether they want to have a legal entity falling under the country's jurisdiction and whether employees want to travel there and risk being held criminally liable. It's likely simpler to just block access to the country's IP ranges (or ignore!) and move on. [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxvnwkl5kgo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxvnwkl5kgo

layer8 1y ago

You are sending data into the UK, hence you have to abide by their laws regarding said data.

patrickmay 1y ago
As the owner of a U.S. based website, I am not sending data anywhere. Some people in the U.K. might request data and download it from my site. I'm not forcing it on them.
- layer8 1y ago
  HTTP responses (website contents) are data that the web servers you are paying for are sending. People can’t download anything from your site without your servers sending the data. Nothing forces you to send that data when you receive an HTTP request. Indeed, geoblocking is a common way to prevent sending data to jurisdictions whose laws the sending of the data might be in violation of.
  - betaby 1y ago
    HTTP GET is pull, not push. The user is pulling data, not the server is pushing data. Government doesn't care though. It intentionally have chosen not to understand that detail.
    - layer8 1y ago
      It’s the server’s choice to send or not to send the data. The fact that the server is receiving a request for the data in no way implies that it has to obey it. If someone places an order for a product whose distribution violates a law, the distributor is still responsible for sending it. Someone selling drugs is still responsible even if the buyer requested the drug. Someone distributing unlicensed material is still responsible even when that material was specifically requested.
      - betaby 1y ago

baobun 1y ago

It means to stop doing business there. For example selling ads targeting UK users to UK advertisers. London banking. Integrating with UK-based data-milking peers.

prism56 1y ago
So if a site doesn't monetise adult content. The UK can't impose fines? Only eventually force ISPs to block that site?