> "Our company does not believe a [snip] site has the authority to censor what you see [snip]. This is why [snip] we have made this decision to block these two websites from being accessed"
I can't tell if this announcement is parody.
I can't tell if this announcement is parody.
Access Denied You don't have permission to access "http://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/idaho-internet-provide..." on this server. Reference #18.6e8e7b5c.1610406044.d4bc76a
> If your organization uses web tools that allow you to track cookies or the IP addresses of people who visit your website from EU countries, then you fall under the scope of the GDPR. Practically speaking, it’s unclear how strictly this provision will be interpreted or how brazenly it will be enforced. Suppose you run a golf course in Manitoba focused exclusively on your local area, but sometimes people in France stumble across your site. Would you find yourself in the crosshairs of European regulators? It’s not likely. But technically you could be held accountable for tracking these data.
So, I've always wondered what they would do? yell at you harshly ?
But I also understand why US companies are doing this. It's kinda like when my dad got parking and speeding tickets sent home from a foreign country. Most likely nothing would happen if he didn't pay them, but you never know when you want to go back to holiday in $country, and the border agent sees them in your "permanent record".
It's at least imaginable that the EU _could_ do something similar, ask for a fine and if not dealt with, the company (or even worse directors of the company) getting some kind of dent in the proverbial permanent record.
(I'm not saying that it's likely, but if EU visitors aren't a big user base for your local regional news paper, I see why it's so tempting to just check the "Block EU visitors" checkbox.)
Downvoters (not necessarily you): This question is why I made sure to quote the paragraph, rather than just link it. "It does" is the lawmakers intent, regardless of feasibility in enforcing it. Avoiding the question entirely is why various sites have decided to block EU access.
No, it does not, anymore than Iran or China get to dictate rules, and for the same reason: the EU has no jurisdiction and no leverage. The EU of course is free to setup their own Great Firewall and block off anyone they dislike, and for people or businesses with assets under their jurisdiction they have an angle to go after that way. But a person or business entirely out of their territory is completely free to flip them the proverbial (or not so proverbial) bird. That is the fundamental nature of "law".
I'll add it's curious this seems to come up on HN with regards to the GDPR so regularly too, precisely because of my first sentence here. It speaks to a real lack of foundation in understanding the basics of law. Are people writing this actually thinking through the implications of every country being able to unilaterally dictate practice worldwide? Or do they think only the EU has this power?
But even if a company doesn't operate in the EU today, it may want to in the future. Or it may want to be acquired by a company that does. The future is unknowable, so I'd imagine they were advised to follow the law, even if there would be no immediate consequences to breaking it.
No, it doesn't, as you yourself admit two sentences later when you write:
>You're pointing out that they may not be able to enforce the law against an entity that does not operate in the EU.
Yes, which by definition means the law does not apply to that person to entity. That is the fundamental nature of law and sovereignty.
>The law itself says so.
Completely irrelevant, in the same way it's irrelevant if you or I order some societal change on our say so. Law is about power. And again, also in the exact same way that it's completely irrelevant if Pakistan or whomever have blasphemy laws on the books they say apply to everyone, China laws against "disrupting society" or someone sues a US entity under the UK's very plaintiff friendly libel laws. They can all be told to pound sand.
>But even if a company doesn't operate in the EU today, it may want to in the future. Or it may want to be acquired by a company that does. The future is unknowable, so I'd imagine they were advised to follow the law, even if there would be no immediate consequences to breaking it.
Sure, but that doesn't mean the law "applies". A company can voluntarily take whatever actions it wishes that it believes may benefit it in the future, but a core point of law is that it's INvoluntary. Since the GDPR doesn't apply to anyone outside of EU jurisdiction (or under treaties giving it local effect), they may choose to run it because they think it's a good idea, or not. Those within EU jurisdiction do not get that choice.
They claim that any company that has dealings with an EU citizen has to follow their laws. Of course they can’t do that. They could have passed a law forbidding their citizens from interacting with businesses that didn’t follow certain rules, since they have the ability to make rules for their citizens, but for some odd reason they decided not to.
Yes, they can.
So can (and does!) the US.
Either may have trouble enforcing them in some cases, but that’s true even of laws within their own territorial domain.
No, the whole point of sovereignty is that if you have it, you are ultimately the arbiter of your laws, including the bounds of where they apply.
You may have practical problems getting your hands on people to apply them, of course, but that’s a separate issue.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/citing-censorship-...
No, it's a total bullshit false equivalency. Basic physical infrastructure, using public rights of way and subsidies, that is for most people going to be their sole and exclusive choice, is not in any fucking way the same as social media. Stop it.
This is such a ludicrous statement I honestly am having trouble thinking out to respond. Companies in different industries being treated differently is the universal rule throughout the world and human history. Airliners aren't accountants aren't computer hardware manufacturers aren't electrical companies aren't sports operations aren't restaurants aren't railways aren't... etc etc. A physical infrastructure company isn't an internet platform, and shouldn't be. Seriously what!?
>your frame here is kind of irrelevant to the question of whether there's irony to be had from censoring someone over censorship
No, it's not remotely irrelevant precisely because different areas of society have different rules. However much you hate Free Speech saurik, at least in America it is the law, and the humans that make up, own, and direct the entities of Twitter or Facebook have the exact same 1st Amendment rights that the rest of us do. It's not "censorship" for you, me, or any other regular private entity to refuse to actively provide help for others' speech. You aren't entitled to my money or property to spread your message, nor am I to yours, unless we are making use of certain public resources.
And that last bit brings us back to ISPs, or USPS/FedEx/UPS for that matter. A physical infrastructure company using public money and rights of way and escaping liability for providing carriage via Common Carrier does not have those same rights, anymore than a public university has the same rights as a private one.
Twitter or Facebook have the exact same 1st Amendment rights
Section 230 was created when Twitter (and the likes) were much less important for public discourse.
I'm willing to bet that it's going to be amended, just like the EU version of it was.
Consider this precedent :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
> The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.
> In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.
Section 230 (which was part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 10 years before Twitter was founded) has nothing to do with this. This is about the First Amendment. Section 230, by allowing moderation that isn't 100% perfect, certainly does encourage forums to be much more tolerant towards speech since only those who make the speech will be liable. But if Section 230 didn't exist, it wouldn't stop bans one single bit and in fact would only encourage vastly more stringent moderation and banning (assuming any unvetted user created content continued to be allowed at all on the general web).
>Consider this precedent :
Look, particularly with 1A SCOTUS has made many changes over the years and EXCLUSIVELY in the direction of more, not less. So if you're going to cite very old case law you really, really need to double check to what extent it's been superseded since. In this particular case the cite is in fact done for you, because if you'd actually read all the way to the bottom of the very Wikipedia[1] piece you cited you'd have noticed that it already has dealt with this:
>In Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, the Supreme Court distinguished a private shopping mall from the company town in Marsh v. Alabama* and held that the mall had not been sufficiently dedicated to public use for First Amendment free speech rights to apply within it.
>Recently the case has been highlighted as a potential precedent to treat online communication media like Facebook as a public space to prevent it from censoring speech. However, in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck* the Supreme Court found that private companies only count as state actors for first amendment purposes if they exercise “powers traditionally exclusive to the state."*
SCOTUS, particularly the current one, isn't going to eliminate the general 1A rights of organizations despite the authoritarian fever dreams of many.
----
1: Incidentally, the end of 230 would mean that Wikipedia-the-organization would be directly liable for everything users contributed which would result in certain changes, the exact nature of which will be left as an exercise to the reader.
That's one way to look at it. On the other hand :
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
> smart lawyers will say that the best way to avoid that kind of liability is not to moderate at all. So Section 230 explicitly overruled that judicial decision, and eliminated liability for moderation choices.
(which would also be bad of course)
So I wouldn't be surprised if in the next years we would see changes :
There could be an intermediary status between hoster and editor : a "displayer" would not be liable for what its users do. It would (unlike a hoster) be liable for the moderating choices that he decides to do.
There might be additional requirements to benefit from the hosting status : of size, power, economic model, &c.
https://www.laquadrature.net/2018/10/16/un-tiers-mediaire/ (fr)
(Some of this has now been implemented in the EU.)
As for Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, you'll note that it was decided by 1 voice, and there recently was a change in the SC, and the USA generally seems to have entered a very unstable time, so who knows what the future holds ?
For example, Western society tolerates to some extent (and it should) bigots, racists, jingoists, people who take religious texts as literal manuals to life, antivaxxers, antimilitary activists, anti police activists, anti globalist activists, environmental activists, etc. These groups are known to be intolerant of some things and some classes of people. And society should tolerate them and allow them the same guarantees of free speech as to other people. There may be exceptions like neonazi/supremacist propaganda in Europe etc. but each exception should be carefully introduced and accepted in the population.
You have to imagine they realize the nature of it. But it's kind of like "this statement is false." It's a challenge to have somebody stop them. And if that happens, they turn it around the other way.
For north Idaho I'm sure that's the only option in town for high speed internet.
"Build your own Facebook"
"Build your own hosting service"
"Build your own iphone/android"
"Build your own ISP"
I don't like where we're heading
An "email like" structure, rather than single company lock in.