Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers • Hacker News Board

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#201

Post by mdhb » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 9:34 AM UTC

vintermann wrote: post #197

pjc50 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. I think people have forgotten how extreme a position this is: the idea that once something is on the internet, national law simply ceases to apply and governments should have absolutely zero control over obscene material, IP infringment, harassment, libel, foreign propaganda, money laundering, fraudulent financial services, gambling, and so on - simply be…

I notice foreign propaganda has sneaked in there. It wouldn't have been there 20 years ago. Then defending site blocking with the need to stop foreign propaganda would be seen as a huge self-goal. People might even have assumed it was sarcastic, and that you didn't actually want site blocking, if you defended it that way. I think people have forgotten how extreme that position used to be. (Money laundering and anythi…

I think you’re actually just incredibly unfamiliar with history to be honest and might be mixing up a Reagan quote about border control and extrapolating that into something very different.

Even in incredibly recent times what do you think the position was regarding the monthly magazine Al-Qaeda published was? It certainly wasn’t the “marketplace of ideas” I’ll tell you that much.

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#202

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 9:50 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #187

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think people have forgotten how extreme a position this is If you can forget that a position is extreme, doesn't that imply that it's a relatively unoffensive and reasonable position? For actual extreme positions like "reduce housing scarcity by murdering some category of people" or "mitigate climate change by prohibiting human reproduction", does anyone need to be reminded that they're extreme? > the idea that o…

> Isn't the extreme position that a country should be able to control what you do even when you're willingly choosing to do it in another jurisdiction? Well, which jurisdiction applies to Spanish Internet users in Spain and Spanish ISPs? Doesn't the US claim global tax jurisdiction on its nationals?

> Well, which jurisdiction applies to Spanish Internet users in Spain and Spanish ISPs?

The Spanish Internet users are attempting to leave the jurisdiction and come back with only information. The ISPs are the equivalent of train operators. How is prohibiting them from taking you to the border not an attempt to prevent you from doing something in another jurisdiction which is legal there?

> Doesn't the US claim global tax jurisdiction on its nationals?

It's one of the most astounding and outrageous things the US does and it ought to stop immediately, not least because people keep citing it as precedent to justify other bad choices.

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#203

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 10:00 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #183

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that what it is though? It seems weird that such an overwhelming majority of US retail banking customers are using a domestic institution if the foreign ones are getting a fair shake, doesn't it? Countries do a thing where they call something "neutral rules" while crafting them such that only the domestic incumbents can satisfy them or they can be selectively enforced against anyone the regulators don't like or wh…

> It seems weird that such an overwhelming majority of US retail banking customers are using a domestic institution if the foreign ones are getting a fair shake, doesn't it? Why is it weird? All other aspects being equal, why would you want to put your money into a bank that's accountable to another government first, and your market second? Banking involves a ton of (unverifiable from the retail end) trust. There are…

> All other aspects being equal, why would you want to put your money into a bank that's accountable to another government first, and your market second?

Because if they were operating in the US then they'd be FDIC insured and subject to US courts like any US bank, and because all else isn't equal. They could be offering better interest rates, or lower fees, or better customer service, or anything else that could make customers want to use them. And since they want business, they'd do those things to exactly the extent it would take for them to get market share. Unless something is preventing that.

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#204

Post by ben_w » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 10:05 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #202

pjc50 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't the extreme position that a country should be able to control what you do even when you're willingly choosing to do it in another jurisdiction? Well, which jurisdiction applies to Spanish Internet users in Spain and Spanish ISPs? Doesn't the US claim global tax jurisdiction on its nationals?

> Well, which jurisdiction applies to Spanish Internet users in Spain and Spanish ISPs? The Spanish Internet users are attempting to leave the jurisdiction and come back with only information. The ISPs are the equivalent of train operators. How is prohibiting them from taking you to the border not an attempt to prevent you from doing something in another jurisdiction which is legal there? > Doesn't the US claim globa…

> The Spanish Internet users are attempting to leave the jurisdiction and come back with only information. The ISPs are the equivalent of train operators. How is prohibiting them from taking you to the border not an attempt to prevent you from doing something in another jurisdiction which is legal there?

For that analogy to hold, I would need something equivalent to a US visa to post this comment that you are currently reading.

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#205

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 10:08 AM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #204

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, which jurisdiction applies to Spanish Internet users in Spain and Spanish ISPs? The Spanish Internet users are attempting to leave the jurisdiction and come back with only information. The ISPs are the equivalent of train operators. How is prohibiting them from taking you to the border not an attempt to prevent you from doing something in another jurisdiction which is legal there? > Doesn't the US claim globa…

> The Spanish Internet users are attempting to leave the jurisdiction and come back with only information. The ISPs are the equivalent of train operators. How is prohibiting them from taking you to the border not an attempt to prevent you from doing something in another jurisdiction which is legal there? For that analogy to hold, I would need something equivalent to a US visa to post this comment that you are current…

> For that analogy to hold, I would need something equivalent to a US visa to post this comment that you are currently reading.

Only if the US required it.

A country you're not a citizen of preventing you from coming in isn't the same thing as a country you are a citizen of preventing you from leaving.

Consider it like this: Suppose you're in Europe and you want to communicate with someone in the US. You could do it in person by you going there, or by them coming to you, or both of you going to some third place to meet. Your country could prevent them from coming to you but not either of the other ones, and you can communicate with them if you can do any of the three. The internet only makes it more efficient.

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#206

Post by vintermann » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 10:42 AM UTC

mdhb wrote: post #201

vintermann wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I notice foreign propaganda has sneaked in there. It wouldn't have been there 20 years ago. Then defending site blocking with the need to stop foreign propaganda would be seen as a huge self-goal. People might even have assumed it was sarcastic, and that you didn't actually want site blocking, if you defended it that way. I think people have forgotten how extreme that position used to be. (Money laundering and anythi…

I think you’re actually just incredibly unfamiliar with history to be honest and might be mixing up a Reagan quote about border control and extrapolating that into something very different. Even in incredibly recent times what do you think the position was regarding the monthly magazine Al-Qaeda published was? It certainly wasn’t the “marketplace of ideas” I’ll tell you that much.

No Reagan quote here, I don't know what you're talking about.

I wasn't suggesting that authoritarians hadn't suggested (or succeeded at) suppressing "foreign propaganda" in the past, but then people still knew they were authoritarians, if they found out. You imagine you're not.

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#207

Post by embedding-shape » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 11:53 AM UTC

rjdj377dhabsn wrote: post #194

embedding-shape wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, similarly, growing up as a European, I thought "America" was "the USA", but turns out it's the entire continent, and even "North America" isn't just the US, but the two neighbors too! I don't think it's too bad to be confused about something, we can't be expected to know it all, every time. We learn and move past it :) > If you substitute the GP for 'pretty typical European play' it makes plenty of sense. Not s…

> I thought "America" was "the USA" It is, at least that's the most common definition. If you want to refer to North and South America together, one generally says "the Americas".

I think that might be popular and common in the US, but outside the US and in the rest of the world, particularly in Ibero-America, "America" is the entire of South, Central and North America together. But again, what you say seem to be true inside the US, so understandable that many understand it as such.

I don't think anyone (outside the US at least) use "The Americas" in daily language, while "America" certainly is.

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#208

Post by qball » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 2:04 PM UTC

exasperaited wrote: post #87

ACCount37 wrote: post #38

I'm no fan of Cloudflare, but they're completely in the right on that. Infrastructure for blocking websites simply shouldn't exist. Because if it's allowed to exist, it ends up subsumed by political and corporate interests, and becomes a tool of overreach and abuse. We've seen that happen over and over again. If US Trade Office can be leveraged to destroy internet censorship efforts in other countries, then so be it.

> If US Trade Office can be leveraged to destroy internet censorship efforts in other countries, then so be it. So by implication you're actually completely fine with other countries pursuing their own objectives for businesses that choose to trade in their country. Because you cannot, possibly, in 2025, be making an argument that the USA's interpretation of the way of things is unimpeachable. That would be absurd an…

If a country wants its preferred speech control, it can build its own Internet.

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#209

Post by mdhb » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 2:28 PM UTC

vintermann wrote: post #206

mdhb wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re actually just incredibly unfamiliar with history to be honest and might be mixing up a Reagan quote about border control and extrapolating that into something very different. Even in incredibly recent times what do you think the position was regarding the monthly magazine Al-Qaeda published was? It certainly wasn’t the “marketplace of ideas” I’ll tell you that much.

No Reagan quote here, I don't know what you're talking about. I wasn't suggesting that authoritarians hadn't suggested (or succeeded at) suppressing "foreign propaganda" in the past, but then people still knew they were authoritarians, if they found out. You imagine you're not.

Just checking a real basic assumption here. Is there a scenario in your mind where a government says that legally its citizens can not consume certain material that ISN’T authoritarian? Because I don’t even know where to start with a premise like that to be honest with you.

Re: Cloudflare tells U.S. govt that foreign site blocking efforts are trade barriers

#210

Post by Ajedi32 » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 2:50 PM UTC

bloppe wrote: post #181

Ajedi32 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if something is hosted in a different country, the laws of that country apply to that service. It's not under your jurisdiction, so you have no say in whether it's allowed to exist, nor should you. You can, of course, pass a law making it illegal for your citizens to communicate with that service, but I think it's really important to understand that that's what's happening. You are passing a law which applies…

How is this different from the status quo?

It's not. It's just a different (and in my opinion, more accurate) way of framing what the status quo is. Governments aren't really "blocking websites"; they're blocking their citizens ability to communicate with those websites.

For any country which cares about the freedom of its citizens, I feel the latter framing ought to make them significantly more hesitant to enact such measures.