That’s exactly how the EU keeps levying fines on Meta and Xitter. If you make your service available in a country, you have to follow their laws. If you don’t want to do that, then you can’t allow people from that country to use your site. This really isn’t controversial.
What’s changing and that has conservatives in fear is that the US is losing control of the internet as other countries begin to enforce their own vision for it. It’s why there is so much anger recently from the Trump admin about taxes and controls on social media.
The internet is open. It is not up to a site to block a country just because. Which is what happened here, and this why their law is dumb and over reaching.
The argument is more like:
“UK citizens, via the open internet could see your site, and we have now decided that we do not like it. We are not going to complain via diplomacy or via your country’s existing Laws or policing agencies, as such, you must pay us £20,000 in fines, per day, for existing because we say so. Despite you having no interests, employees or infrastructure, at all, in our country.”
Do you view allowing any arbitrary IP address to access your site as “offering service” to all countries? Or,
Do you view having a website as just putting something into cyberspace and it’s the responsibility of countries to control access to it if they don’t want their citizens going there.
Personally, I’m a firm believer that IP addresses aren’t people and that an IP address range doesn’t mean the end user is from that country, so I lean towards point 2.
…buuuuuut I also really don’t like the idea that countries control access to things like that. I’m sort of in a “wish I could have it both ways” thing. Because the more sites that are adamant about taking view number 2 the more countries will be encouraged to censor. And let’s be honest, this is all about control, there are sensible ways to protect children like creating standardized self labels for parental controls to reject and find on those instead, so… It’s hard.
I felt this way back in the late 90s when states started requiring sales tax for online transactions. It felt stupid to me that a transaction that occurs in some other state should have to include taxes for the place where you live.
Why would an American website pay fines because of the laws of a random country?
If you offer a service in a country you are subject to their laws.
What does that mean? Arent most sites available everywhere by default?
No, you can definitely block entire countries.
oh. So if I publish a website I’m responsible for following other countries/areas laws?
That’s exactly how the EU keeps levying fines on Meta and Xitter. If you make your service available in a country, you have to follow their laws. If you don’t want to do that, then you can’t allow people from that country to use your site. This really isn’t controversial.
No it makes sense. I guess I just thought it would be the other way around.
What’s changing and that has conservatives in fear is that the US is losing control of the internet as other countries begin to enforce their own vision for it. It’s why there is so much anger recently from the Trump admin about taxes and controls on social media.
The internet is open. It is not up to a site to block a country just because. Which is what happened here, and this why their law is dumb and over reaching.
The argument is more like:
“UK citizens, via the open internet could see your site, and we have now decided that we do not like it. We are not going to complain via diplomacy or via your country’s existing Laws or policing agencies, as such, you must pay us £20,000 in fines, per day, for existing because we say so. Despite you having no interests, employees or infrastructure, at all, in our country.”
deleted by creator
I guess this is what it comes down to…
Personally, I’m a firm believer that IP addresses aren’t people and that an IP address range doesn’t mean the end user is from that country, so I lean towards point 2.
…buuuuuut I also really don’t like the idea that countries control access to things like that. I’m sort of in a “wish I could have it both ways” thing. Because the more sites that are adamant about taking view number 2 the more countries will be encouraged to censor. And let’s be honest, this is all about control, there are sensible ways to protect children like creating standardized self labels for parental controls to reject and find on those instead, so… It’s hard.
I hate this.
I felt this way back in the late 90s when states started requiring sales tax for online transactions. It felt stupid to me that a transaction that occurs in some other state should have to include taxes for the place where you live.