Do you view allowing any arbitrary IP address to access your site as “offering service” to all countries? Or,
Do you view having a website as just putting something into cyberspace and it’s the responsibility of countries to control access to it if they don’t want their citizens going there.
Personally, I’m a firm believer that IP addresses aren’t people and that an IP address range doesn’t mean the end user is from that country, so I lean towards point 2.
…buuuuuut I also really don’t like the idea that countries control access to things like that. I’m sort of in a “wish I could have it both ways” thing. Because the more sites that are adamant about taking view number 2 the more countries will be encouraged to censor. And let’s be honest, this is all about control, there are sensible ways to protect children like creating standardized self labels for parental controls to reject and find on those instead, so… It’s hard.
I felt this way back in the late 90s when states started requiring sales tax for online transactions. It felt stupid to me that a transaction that occurs in some other state should have to include taxes for the place where you live.
My website is my website. You visit my website, my website does not visit you. My website is public, you choose to enter it. You visit my website through your infrastructure to get to my infrastructure. My infrastructure is publicly available to you, should you be able to access it.
The governing body of your (second person, not you specifically) infrastructure (the UK government) chooses to impose rules on my actions. Their threat is “we’ll stop letting people in our infrastructure from being able to reach your infrastructure.”
That is extortion, not working in the public’s favor. The UK government is saying they’ll block all roads from your house that lead to my website outside of the UK. My website is overseas, brother. The UK is blocking all the ports so you can’t sail here. I don’t “offer services” to you in the UK, I just don’t prevent people from the UK from trying to reach my island. Nothing about my services requires the UK infrastructure. My services keep operating whether the UK government exists or not. How do they have any right over my infrastructure in this scenario?
If this is about ads, the UK has all the right to remove my ads from their country. That is within their right. Anything about blocking people from the UK is within their right, sure, but that’s not my problem lol. Sorry you have a shit government lol
Imagine contacting a brick and mortar store in another country and threatening sanctions because they don’t check the passport of visitors so they’re “offering services” to another country. That’s sort of what’s happening.
You’re right, but that also means your service can get blocked in said country. And that’s what they don’t want, so they’re trying to fight it from home.
Whoever is providing the communications infrastructure to the Australian caller would be offering a service in Australia (5g masts, fibre, customer service etc.)
Only if the call is going via satellite owned by non-Australians could you avoid this.
The internet is open. It is not up to a site to block a country just because. Which is what happened here, and this why their law is dumb and over reaching.
The argument is more like:
“UK citizens, via the open internet could see your site, and we have now decided that we do not like it. We are not going to complain via diplomacy or via your country’s existing Laws or policing agencies, as such, you must pay us £20,000 in fines, per day, for existing because we say so. Despite you having no interests, employees or infrastructure, at all, in our country.”
That’s exactly how the EU keeps levying fines on Meta and Xitter. If you make your service available in a country, you have to follow their laws. If you don’t want to do that, then you can’t allow people from that country to use your site. This really isn’t controversial.
What’s changing and that has conservatives in fear is that the US is losing control of the internet as other countries begin to enforce their own vision for it. It’s why there is so much anger recently from the Trump admin about taxes and controls on social media.
Why would an American website pay fines because of the laws of a random country?
If you offer a service in a country you are subject to their laws.
I guess this is what it comes down to…
Personally, I’m a firm believer that IP addresses aren’t people and that an IP address range doesn’t mean the end user is from that country, so I lean towards point 2.
…buuuuuut I also really don’t like the idea that countries control access to things like that. I’m sort of in a “wish I could have it both ways” thing. Because the more sites that are adamant about taking view number 2 the more countries will be encouraged to censor. And let’s be honest, this is all about control, there are sensible ways to protect children like creating standardized self labels for parental controls to reject and find on those instead, so… It’s hard.
I hate this.
I felt this way back in the late 90s when states started requiring sales tax for online transactions. It felt stupid to me that a transaction that occurs in some other state should have to include taxes for the place where you live.
My website is my website. You visit my website, my website does not visit you. My website is public, you choose to enter it. You visit my website through your infrastructure to get to my infrastructure. My infrastructure is publicly available to you, should you be able to access it.
The governing body of your (second person, not you specifically) infrastructure (the UK government) chooses to impose rules on my actions. Their threat is “we’ll stop letting people in our infrastructure from being able to reach your infrastructure.”
That is extortion, not working in the public’s favor. The UK government is saying they’ll block all roads from your house that lead to my website outside of the UK. My website is overseas, brother. The UK is blocking all the ports so you can’t sail here. I don’t “offer services” to you in the UK, I just don’t prevent people from the UK from trying to reach my island. Nothing about my services requires the UK infrastructure. My services keep operating whether the UK government exists or not. How do they have any right over my infrastructure in this scenario?
If this is about ads, the UK has all the right to remove my ads from their country. That is within their right. Anything about blocking people from the UK is within their right, sure, but that’s not my problem lol. Sorry you have a shit government lol
Imagine contacting a brick and mortar store in another country and threatening sanctions because they don’t check the passport of visitors so they’re “offering services” to another country. That’s sort of what’s happening.
I’m not sure I like the idea that you’re “offering a service” in a country simply by being a data service that can accessed from it.
Someone from Australia can call me and we can chat. It doesn’t mean I or my phone carrier are offering a service in Australia.
You’re right, but that also means your service can get blocked in said country. And that’s what they don’t want, so they’re trying to fight it from home.
Whoever is providing the communications infrastructure to the Australian caller would be offering a service in Australia (5g masts, fibre, customer service etc.)
Only if the call is going via satellite owned by non-Australians could you avoid this.
The internet is open. It is not up to a site to block a country just because. Which is what happened here, and this why their law is dumb and over reaching.
The argument is more like:
“UK citizens, via the open internet could see your site, and we have now decided that we do not like it. We are not going to complain via diplomacy or via your country’s existing Laws or policing agencies, as such, you must pay us £20,000 in fines, per day, for existing because we say so. Despite you having no interests, employees or infrastructure, at all, in our country.”
deleted by creator
What does that mean? Arent most sites available everywhere by default?
No, you can definitely block entire countries.
oh. So if I publish a website I’m responsible for following other countries/areas laws?
That’s exactly how the EU keeps levying fines on Meta and Xitter. If you make your service available in a country, you have to follow their laws. If you don’t want to do that, then you can’t allow people from that country to use your site. This really isn’t controversial.
No it makes sense. I guess I just thought it would be the other way around.
What’s changing and that has conservatives in fear is that the US is losing control of the internet as other countries begin to enforce their own vision for it. It’s why there is so much anger recently from the Trump admin about taxes and controls on social media.