Hacker News Reader

Comment by petcat | Hacker News Reader

USA doesn't block websites. The FBI will seize domains after some judicial review and a court order. That's about it.

Yes, you've just described one method the US authorities use to block websites.

They also force ISPs to block IPs [0].

I feel trying to say that's not "blocking websites" is playing games with words, and the results are functionally the same to the "average" user.

The fact that the US effectively claim juristiction over the root DNS system is a more a geopolitical power thing rather than a legal restriction.

[0] https://torrentfreak.com/us-court-orders-every-isp-in-the-un...

A court issued that ruling. Not an administrative agency. Pretty big difference.

So if the UK gets a court to ratify these orders then you’re on board with them being globally enforced?

The article above is about US ISP ordered to block sites for US customer. Not 'globally' enforced. Important difference.

Ofcourse, everybody ( well, outside the UK ) are OK if UK orders UK ISPs blocks sites for their customers.

I think one advantage is you can directly appeal a court ruling. To challenge an administrative order you need to sue the government. In some cases, you need to sue the government in a separate trial first, in order to get permission to start suing them for cause in another one.

Another advantage as the other reply has mentioned is that courts have broad authority but must narrow the effect of their rulings to the minimum necessary to address the suit. In this case it would certainly lead to 4Chan being blocked by UK ISPs by order of a UK court. I think even 4Chan would be fine with that.

The US arrested and imprisoned the bosses of multiple UK-based gambling sites that were not only legal in the UK – they were listed on the London Stock Exchange.

"You’re taking bets from U.S. customers → you’re violating U.S. law"

This is different than 4chan allowing UK viewers to access the website at all.

Why? It doesn't strike me as remotely different.

Country A has a law that says X is illegal, and tries to enforce it against companies in country B where X is legal.

Whether either case is reasonable is a different question, though.

> You’re showing pictures to UK customers → you’re violating UK law

As we can clearly see from the comment section here, Americans absolutely non-ironically believe their law applies to anyone they have business with.

And you can use cctlds to bypass this too

Yes. Hollywood is mad, but piracy sites are still up and unblocked. Book publishers are mad, but Anna's Archive persists on CCTLDs.

The US by and large doesn't censor websites even if the content is illegal in the US. They'll get a warrant and seize servers or domains if it's in the country, or maybe poke international law enforcement for cooperation, but it doesn't really extend beyond that.

> It is further ordered that all ISPs (including without limitation those set forth in Exhibit B hereto) and any other ISPs providing services in the United States shall block access to the Website at any domain address known today (including but not limited to those set forth in Exhibit A hereto) or to be used in the future by the Defendants (“Newly Detected Websites”) by any technological means available on the ISPs’ systems. The domain addresses and any Newly Detected Websites shall be channeled in such a way that users will be unable to connect and/or use the Website, and will be diverted by the ISPs’ DNS servers to a landing page operated and controlled by Plaintiffs (the “Landing Page”).

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/judge-rules-ever...

ISPs just ignored that order.

Short memory then. Megaupload was censored by way of seizure. Exactly what you said doesn't happen in the us

I literally said "They'll get a warrant and seize servers or domains."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com