3 ms·
> But if you're shipping lemonade to the UK, you are subject to UK lemonade regulations. I was with you up until here. Shipping to a physical address, where if
by grayhatter 1y ago
> But if you're shipping lemonade to the UK, you are subject to UK lemonade regulations.
I was with you up until here. Shipping to a physical address, where if you don't specify the country name, it won't arrive. Is very different than shipping to an Internet address, which has no "reasonable" connection to a physical location.
> Your choice are: follow UK regulations [give up the core gimmick of your entire site]; stop shipping lemonade to the UK [the shipping analogy really breaks here, how? and what about vpns? what if the other endpoint is in the UK but the address isn't?]; or continue as you were, never go to the UK, and know that the UK can always ban shipments from your stand.
I don't disagree that [country] can make laws that make society worse... But I don't think it's reasonable to defend them as if these actions aren't egregious. There's the armchair arguments that I enjoy as a thought experiment, but it's still important to point out how antisocial this behavior is.
> The US does the same thing all the time, and even worse [...]
There's an argument to be made they're using a domain registratar in the US, which is subject to those laws (obviously). But what about [other disappointing behavior] because it's worse. Is exactly the example you're arguing against. Precedence of bad stuff is still bad, ideally everyone would point out it's bad, and suggest alternatives to the bad thing, no?
- NicuCalcea 1y ago> But I don't think it's reasonable to defend them as if these actions aren't egregious I'm not defending the Online Safety Act, I think it's a horrible and stupid law. On the other hand, I will defend GDPR, which uses a similar legal framework of enforcement. My argument is that the UK is within its rights to implement and enforce laws as they see fit, not that the laws are good.
- grayhatter 1y ago> My argument is that the UK is within its rights to implement and enforce laws as they see fit, not that the laws are good. The argument you are making, is that the laws, and the behavior they're enabling is reasonable. That may not what you meant to convey, but to abuse an analogy, it is fruit from the poisoned tree. You can't defend some action, without by proxy defending the source. Either the law is reasonable, and ofcom is acting reasonably, or the law is unreasonable, and ofcom is acting unreasonably trying to enforce it. Correct or not, or technically legal in the UK or not. You can defend the actions of ofcom, as not illegal, but that's not what you're doing, and not the context of this thread.
- NicuCalcea 1y ago> The argument you are making, is that the laws, and the behavior they're enabling is reasonable. I am doing no such thing.
- grayhatter 1y agoI don't think you're aware of what you're communicating then. Because that is exactly what comes from defending them, and you are defending them.