5 ms·

I mean I dislike JD Vance as much as the next guy, but I don't see how it's unreasonable to appeal to the federal government for assistance in dealing with inte

I mean I dislike JD Vance as much as the next guy, but I don't see how it's unreasonable to appeal to the federal government for assistance in dealing with international legal issues. That's very much in the government's remit.

croes 9mo ago
Lawyers are for legal issues. Do you call your government if you get a fine in a foreign country? Unless it’s life threatening I doubt that.
- Alupis 9mo ago
  You do when the fine is more than double your annual revenue in the foreign nation, has international and geopolitical implications, impacts many other US businesses, could harm foreign relations, and will harm regular US citizens. That's exactly the type of thing the Executive Branch is supposed to deal with.
  - Pedro_Ribeiro 9mo ago
    Do people not understand that companies on this scale are geopolitically important?
    - tag2103 9mo ago
      The Italians obviously don't
    - oytis 9mo ago
      I mean, that's an argument for making them respect your country's laws or banning them from your country if they don't want to.
    - jacquesm 9mo ago
      They're not.
    - oaiey 9mo ago
      Thank they should act like it and respect the laws of the countries. If you run to the US executive to assert US understanding of law onto other countries you are geopolitical important, however, as a tool for the US national interest not as a true international company. A true international company would serve their customers in their legal systems. Fight the laws there, try to make them better, but don't strongarm them with other country forces. They are a sovereign country.
      - ta9000 9mo ago
        Italy should have no right to take a website off the internet globally, which from what I’ve read this allows them to do. That’s insane.
        oaiey 9mo ago
        They have all right to sanction or restrict a company which has a legal footprint in their territory. When you are incorporating as a company in a country you are subject to their laws. Period. If that includes rules how you act worldwide, than that is a part of it. Do not get me wrong, restricting free speech or apply IP law outside your territory is IMHO not right for a country to do.
      - pavon 9mo ago
        When a country is trying to impose extra-territorial laws, then it goes beyond enforcing their sovereignty, and it is completely reasonable for the affected to request diplomatic intervention.
        itsyonas 9mo ago
        Surely I don't need to point out the irony of complaining to the US government about another country wanting to impose extraterritorial laws?
        xvector 9mo ago
        Whataboutism. What do you expect Cloudflare to do about the US imposing extraterritorial laws? How is that in any way relevant to their dilemma at hand?
    - dandellion 9mo ago
      Maybe that's the way it is in the US, because the country is run by corporations. But in the rest of the world we don't operate like that.
      - xvector 9mo ago
        This is objectively false. You're telling me ASML isn't geopolitically important? That TSMC isn't geopolitically important? We are likely to enter a war for the latter within the next decade.
    - Quothling 9mo ago
      Why would Italy pick Cloudflare over Bunny.net or even CDNetworks if Cloudflare can't follow their laws? Today US tech products sell well in Europe because of the past 80 years of positive relationships. So Cloudflare is the obvious choice over CDNetworks, but for how long will it be like that?
    - croes 9mo ago
      Geopolitical important companies are a bad thing. Imagine the company being an Iranian or North Korean company. That's one countries leverage against another countries laws.
  - oytis 9mo ago
    Executive branch is supposed to deal with other countries' laws and courts? Does it also hold for European executive branches and American laws? I don't want to even imagine a world that works like this.
    - adastra22 9mo ago
      It’s called diplomacy.
      - flumpcakes 9mo ago
        "I don't like your laws, and we're bigger!"
        nozzlegear 9mo ago
        You're just describing the concept of realpolitik. This is how the world works.
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
    - fc417fc802 9mo ago
      > Does it also hold for European executive branches and American laws? Yes, if a US law is overreaching and directly impacting people in the EU. That is literally how the world works in practice so I'm not sure what to tell you.
      - oytis 9mo ago
        CLOUD act is overreaching and impacting people in the EU. What EU governments are doing is avoiding US-based cloud services for critical applications, because it's an US law, not a European one
  - oaiey 9mo ago
    When the risks are too high, then exit the market. When you do business in a market, adhere to the laws there. It is however the business of governments to foster harmonized (globalized) markets. But the US has killed so many regulations and collaborations in the last year, that there is little hope that this will improve any time soon. They do not want globalization anymore but American first. Reactions of other countries will be higher fines, more regulation and higher entry barriers.
    - stinkbeetle 9mo ago
      > When the risks are too high, then exit the market. When you do business in a market, adhere to the laws there. And when you want help to improve your terms of trade, you can petition your government to assist. > It is however the business of governments to foster harmonized (globalized) markets. It is the business of governments to further the interests and wishes of their people. > But the US has killed so many regulations and collaborations in the last year, that there is little hope that this will improve any time soon. Is Italy's actions here fostering "harmonized (globalized) markets", I wonder? > They do not want globalization anymore but American first. If globalization is what Americans want, then that is what their government should be accommodating. If it's not, then the government should not. Even if "the experts" think something is right or wrong, even if some economic factor or other might objectively improve with a particular policy, it should be up to the people to decide. Self-determination is one of the most fundamental human rights there is, too often ignored by the ruling class.
- idopmstuff 9mo ago
  Well first off, generally if you are arrested in another country you would in fact call your government. Most people do this, and it'd be foolish not to. If you get sued for a large amount of money or defrauded or face any number of other issues, also reasonable to call your government. Anyway, not a great comparison because you're talking about legal regulations governing speech on the internet. This isn't a jaywalking ticket, it's a deeply complex regulatory issue involving politics, law and international relations. It's also an issue that the current administration has shown interest in, so if you're an affected American business it would be pretty foolish not to seek help there.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

croes 9mo ago

Lawyers are for legal issues. Do you call your government if you get a fine in a foreign country? Unless it’s life threatening I doubt that.

Alupis 9mo ago
You do when the fine is more than double your annual revenue in the foreign nation, has international and geopolitical implications, impacts many other US businesses, could harm foreign relations, and will harm regular US citizens. That's exactly the type of thing the Executive Branch is supposed to deal with.
- Pedro_Ribeiro 9mo ago
  Do people not understand that companies on this scale are geopolitically important?
  - tag2103 9mo ago
    The Italians obviously don't
  - oytis 9mo ago
    I mean, that's an argument for making them respect your country's laws or banning them from your country if they don't want to.
  - jacquesm 9mo ago
    They're not.
  - oaiey 9mo ago
    Thank they should act like it and respect the laws of the countries. If you run to the US executive to assert US understanding of law onto other countries you are geopolitical important, however, as a tool for the US national interest not as a true international company. A true international company would serve their customers in their legal systems. Fight the laws there, try to make them better, but don't strongarm them with other country forces. They are a sovereign country.
    - ta9000 9mo ago
      Italy should have no right to take a website off the internet globally, which from what I’ve read this allows them to do. That’s insane.
      - oaiey 9mo ago
        They have all right to sanction or restrict a company which has a legal footprint in their territory. When you are incorporating as a company in a country you are subject to their laws. Period. If that includes rules how you act worldwide, than that is a part of it. Do not get me wrong, restricting free speech or apply IP law outside your territory is IMHO not right for a country to do.
    - pavon 9mo ago
      When a country is trying to impose extra-territorial laws, then it goes beyond enforcing their sovereignty, and it is completely reasonable for the affected to request diplomatic intervention.
      - itsyonas 9mo ago
        Surely I don't need to point out the irony of complaining to the US government about another country wanting to impose extraterritorial laws?
        xvector 9mo ago
        Whataboutism. What do you expect Cloudflare to do about the US imposing extraterritorial laws? How is that in any way relevant to their dilemma at hand?
  - dandellion 9mo ago
    Maybe that's the way it is in the US, because the country is run by corporations. But in the rest of the world we don't operate like that.
    - xvector 9mo ago
      This is objectively false. You're telling me ASML isn't geopolitically important? That TSMC isn't geopolitically important? We are likely to enter a war for the latter within the next decade.
  - Quothling 9mo ago
    Why would Italy pick Cloudflare over Bunny.net or even CDNetworks if Cloudflare can't follow their laws? Today US tech products sell well in Europe because of the past 80 years of positive relationships. So Cloudflare is the obvious choice over CDNetworks, but for how long will it be like that?
  - croes 9mo ago
    Geopolitical important companies are a bad thing. Imagine the company being an Iranian or North Korean company. That's one countries leverage against another countries laws.
- oytis 9mo ago
  Executive branch is supposed to deal with other countries' laws and courts? Does it also hold for European executive branches and American laws? I don't want to even imagine a world that works like this.
  - adastra22 9mo ago
    It’s called diplomacy.
    - flumpcakes 9mo ago
      "I don't like your laws, and we're bigger!"
      - nozzlegear 9mo ago
        You're just describing the concept of realpolitik. This is how the world works.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - fc417fc802 9mo ago
    > Does it also hold for European executive branches and American laws? Yes, if a US law is overreaching and directly impacting people in the EU. That is literally how the world works in practice so I'm not sure what to tell you.
    - oytis 9mo ago
      CLOUD act is overreaching and impacting people in the EU. What EU governments are doing is avoiding US-based cloud services for critical applications, because it's an US law, not a European one
- oaiey 9mo ago
  When the risks are too high, then exit the market. When you do business in a market, adhere to the laws there. It is however the business of governments to foster harmonized (globalized) markets. But the US has killed so many regulations and collaborations in the last year, that there is little hope that this will improve any time soon. They do not want globalization anymore but American first. Reactions of other countries will be higher fines, more regulation and higher entry barriers.
  - stinkbeetle 9mo ago
    > When the risks are too high, then exit the market. When you do business in a market, adhere to the laws there. And when you want help to improve your terms of trade, you can petition your government to assist. > It is however the business of governments to foster harmonized (globalized) markets. It is the business of governments to further the interests and wishes of their people. > But the US has killed so many regulations and collaborations in the last year, that there is little hope that this will improve any time soon. Is Italy's actions here fostering "harmonized (globalized) markets", I wonder? > They do not want globalization anymore but American first. If globalization is what Americans want, then that is what their government should be accommodating. If it's not, then the government should not. Even if "the experts" think something is right or wrong, even if some economic factor or other might objectively improve with a particular policy, it should be up to the people to decide. Self-determination is one of the most fundamental human rights there is, too often ignored by the ruling class.
idopmstuff 9mo ago
Well first off, generally if you are arrested in another country you would in fact call your government. Most people do this, and it'd be foolish not to. If you get sued for a large amount of money or defrauded or face any number of other issues, also reasonable to call your government. Anyway, not a great comparison because you're talking about legal regulations governing speech on the internet. This isn't a jaywalking ticket, it's a deeply complex regulatory issue involving politics, law and international relations. It's also an issue that the current administration has shown interest in, so if you're an affected American business it would be pretty foolish not to seek help there.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]