"Don't make HTTP calls outside of our borders."
"We're not fragmenting the internet."
???
"We're not fragmenting the internet."
???
Ok, let me make a simple “marvel comics” example: what if all your calls were funneled through “Putin servers” or “Iran cloud” or “ People's Liberation Army computers”? Would you mind?
I hear you arguing “but we’re the good guys! We’re USA, flag bearers of Democracy!” but no. Really according to EU law, under USA jurisdiction Pricacy Rights are fair game for people like Zuck. The guy that said “ I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS. People just submitted it. I don't know why. They "trust me". Dumb fucks.”
Now, granted: our politicians likely want to stay on top of the consensus forming media, and make sure it’s within reach of their network. Annoying to see all the action moving to a different platform after all the years spent building relationships with the old media, but that’s the business.
When I found out Parler was being hosted on Russian servers, I immediately informed everyone I knew who was thinking about switching to Parler that it was a really bad idea. And it's their choice whether to use Parler or not.
I think it's great if companies can't hide that they're doing something like routing data through Russia. I think it's pretty stupid to not let someone use a product that routes data through Russia.
I also think that if Facebook stands up servers in France, it'll still be just as problematic as it is today.
In the end, though, there is a high-tech solution here, and that's to migrate to 100% asymmetrically encrypted messaging, at the application level, regardless of underlying transport. This would force nation states to risk large scale hacking of devices, but that's more visible and easier to combat, as long as we remain free to make (and buy) the compute hardware we want to make.
His whole comment was about how he want to let traffic route through Russia even though he doesn't like it... but it's really Americentric? Could you explain that point please?