751–760 of 817 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they want to run that sort of banana republic nonsense in violation of international laws and norms, they can choose to do so (and make an international incident).
What international law or norms are being violated here? Near as I can tell, this is the UK trying to avoid using the mechanisms of international law or norms to impose domestic law on international firms?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US have done this a lot, luring “hackers” and other criminals to the US and then arresting them.
I declare categorically that UK law does not apply to me, here in California. However , if I'm going to break one of their laws that they feel very strongly about, I'm probably not going to travel to the UK. That's just begging for something bad to happen. Why risk it? So in this case, if you know the US is looking for you, why, oh why, would you travel to the US?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I declare categorically that UK law does not apply to me, here in California. However , if I'm going to break one of their laws that they feel very strongly about, I'm probably not going to travel to the UK. That's just begging for something bad to happen. Why risk it? So in this case, if you know the US is looking for you, why, oh why, would you travel to the US?
They can issue an arrest warrant, though, and then file an extradition request to the US which you then have to fight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>every tech company engages in regulatory alignment for the entire Middle East Can someone expand on this a bit? I'm passingly familiar with the Chinese Google example (though I thought Google left the market rather than bend the knee?) but I know nearly nothing about the Middle East angle.
On a photocopier, if I switch the language to Arabic, Hebrew disappears from the list of options.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://freespeechunion.org/french-philosopher-to-challenge-...
So your counter is to show that we won’t let a blatant racist in? I think a lot of folks in the UK would consider that a good thing. Just out of genuine curiosity, what media are you consuming to have this view of the country?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your counter is to show that we won’t let a blatant racist in? I think a lot of folks in the UK would consider that a good thing. Just out of genuine curiosity, what media are you consuming to have this view of the country?
So you are okay with people being denied entry because of their words, just certain words?
Again, genuinely interested in what media you’re consuming to have this view of the UK.
> The [Online Safety] Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom And so they should, within the borders of the UK. It's illegal to own unlicensed firearms in the UK. In the US, it is legal. UK authorities can prevent ownership of firearms in the UK via penalties, prevent firms from selling firearms in the UK, and set up import controls to prevent pe…
> They cannot prevent foreign companies from providing such content. Said companies often find it less burdensome to comply than the option of being outright blocked from the market. Brazil did that a couple times with a couple different companies. If a company wants to provide services to a given jurisdiction, it needs to comply with local regulations.
4chan offers services at it's web servers which are in the US. People from the UK come over, access the servers in the US, and then import the content they see into the UK. 4chan is offering services locally in the US. People come from all over the place to access those services in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
4chan is exporting. The consumer is importing. That distinction matters.
Perhaps the terms import and export aren’t suitable for internet content? Perhaps new terms with legal implications are needed for internet age?
As was mentioned in another thread, it is simpler to go after the companies abroad than to build out measures that would prevent such import. Those measures would probably take the form of some sort of firewalls. They would be noticeable to the British people, and the British people, being sensitive about their civil liberties, would not like that. It's easier for Ofcam to go after a couple bigger companies, impose no cost on the British public, and tramp national sovereignty into the ground a bit along the way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you are okay with people being denied entry because of their words, just certain words?
In a country that doesn’t have the first amendment, yes. Again, genuinely interested in what media you’re consuming to have this view of the UK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I don't want the government to decide which thoughts I can access and which ones I can't That would be an interesting discussion in itself, but even so - accessing material in isolation over the internet removes all of the benefits of cultural and community self-regulation. >freely run undercover propaganda and/or destabilization campaigns I'm of the opinion that WWW3 has already happened - it was a war for hearts a…
> I'm of the opinion that WWW3 has already happened - it was a war for hearts and minds waged over the internet, and we've already lost. Who is we, and who won? What did they win?