4 ms·

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 d

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
    - thewebguyd 1y ago
      > It's the company's prerogative of whether they want to have a legal entity falling under the country's jurisdiction Except in this case, Imgur does not have a legal entity falling under the UK's jurisdiction. They are purely a US based company. It's not like Google, Apple, etc. that have offices in the UK. This particular fine is the UK trying to extend its jurisdiction to entities that it has no sovereign authority over. Just because some UK user might visit my website doesn't mean I now have to follow all UK laws if I don't actually do business there, and don't intend to. Blocking the traffic is how we end up with the balkanization of the internet.
      - Ray20 1y ago
        > Just because some UK user might visit my website doesn't mean I now have to follow all UK laws if I don't actually do business there That's exactly what it means. On what basis should you be allowed to violate British law when interacting with a British resident? Because you're not under British jurisdiction? That would be incredibly illogical. Not only would it mean that people and companies under British jurisdiction are privileged by the British legal system over those in other jurisdictions, but it would also raise questions about the need for such legislation if the British legal system accepts that it's okay for people from other jurisdictions to violate it.
        thewebguyd 1y ago
        > On what basis should you be allowed to violate British law when interacting with a British resident? If all I do is host a website that serves images, and I'm not hosting nor operating out of the UK, why would I be subject to their laws? Just because it's accessible globally means I now have to factor in every possible regulation from around the world? The burden shouldn't fall on me, the website operator, to block UK traffic because they want to restrict content or enforce age verification. Nor should they be able to fine me. It's up to the UK to have UK based ISPs block my site then. Obviously a different story if I'm deliberately offering a paid service to UK citizens, or advertising to them, etc. But to suggest that every website owner now needs to be aware of, and follow, ever nation's unique regulations will spell the death of the internet as a global network.
pixl97 1y ago
>There's no action they can legally take against Imgur. This is a very, very dangerous game to play. This is how employees of your business on vacation in the UK end up in jail.
- DiabloD3 1y ago
  Imgur recently fired all of their employees, and no longer has any actual staff. No developers, no moderators, no IT guys. An ongoing protest over the state of Imgur has been going on since the first of this month. So, uh, _what_ employees on vacation?
  - pixl97 1y ago
    So the company is owned by a mythical no one? Somewhere on a corporate charter there are names.
    - DiabloD3 1y ago
      Its owned by worse than that. Its owned by MediaLab now. That's the same company that owns WorldStarHipHop, the website that encourages children to do dangerous acts to get viral stardom. You can look up who owns MediaLab, and the things they have done. I don't think the UK is going to kidnap them if they go there. They have money.
- KaiserPro 1y ago
  > This is how employees of your business on vacation in the UK end up in jail. I mean its not. Because this is data protection laws, the company is liable, not its employees. (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/accountability-and-governance/guide-to-accountability-and-governance/data-protection-officers/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...) Even in cases where a company causes death, or destruction and the company is found liable, employees are not allowed to be used as standins, employees need to be convicted as well. a conviction isn't fungible, that kinda the point of common law.
  - 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

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
  - thewebguyd 1y ago
    > It's the company's prerogative of whether they want to have a legal entity falling under the country's jurisdiction Except in this case, Imgur does not have a legal entity falling under the UK's jurisdiction. They are purely a US based company. It's not like Google, Apple, etc. that have offices in the UK. This particular fine is the UK trying to extend its jurisdiction to entities that it has no sovereign authority over. Just because some UK user might visit my website doesn't mean I now have to follow all UK laws if I don't actually do business there, and don't intend to. Blocking the traffic is how we end up with the balkanization of the internet.
    - Ray20 1y ago
      > Just because some UK user might visit my website doesn't mean I now have to follow all UK laws if I don't actually do business there That's exactly what it means. On what basis should you be allowed to violate British law when interacting with a British resident? Because you're not under British jurisdiction? That would be incredibly illogical. Not only would it mean that people and companies under British jurisdiction are privileged by the British legal system over those in other jurisdictions, but it would also raise questions about the need for such legislation if the British legal system accepts that it's okay for people from other jurisdictions to violate it.
      - thewebguyd 1y ago
        > On what basis should you be allowed to violate British law when interacting with a British resident? If all I do is host a website that serves images, and I'm not hosting nor operating out of the UK, why would I be subject to their laws? Just because it's accessible globally means I now have to factor in every possible regulation from around the world? The burden shouldn't fall on me, the website operator, to block UK traffic because they want to restrict content or enforce age verification. Nor should they be able to fine me. It's up to the UK to have UK based ISPs block my site then. Obviously a different story if I'm deliberately offering a paid service to UK citizens, or advertising to them, etc. But to suggest that every website owner now needs to be aware of, and follow, ever nation's unique regulations will spell the death of the internet as a global network.

pixl97 1y ago

>There's no action they can legally take against Imgur. This is a very, very dangerous game to play. This is how employees of your business on vacation in the UK end up in jail.

DiabloD3 1y ago
Imgur recently fired all of their employees, and no longer has any actual staff. No developers, no moderators, no IT guys. An ongoing protest over the state of Imgur has been going on since the first of this month. So, uh, _what_ employees on vacation?
- pixl97 1y ago
  So the company is owned by a mythical no one? Somewhere on a corporate charter there are names.
  - DiabloD3 1y ago
    Its owned by worse than that. Its owned by MediaLab now. That's the same company that owns WorldStarHipHop, the website that encourages children to do dangerous acts to get viral stardom. You can look up who owns MediaLab, and the things they have done. I don't think the UK is going to kidnap them if they go there. They have money.
KaiserPro 1y ago
> This is how employees of your business on vacation in the UK end up in jail. I mean its not. Because this is data protection laws, the company is liable, not its employees. (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/accountability-and-governance/guide-to-accountability-and-governance/data-protection-officers/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...) Even in cases where a company causes death, or destruction and the company is found liable, employees are not allowed to be used as standins, employees need to be convicted as well. a conviction isn't fungible, that kinda the point of common law.
- 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]