Technology

59549 readers

3417 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

851

Petition calls to ban Elon Musk's X in Europe (ban-x-in.eu)

submitted 4 days ago by FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/technology@lemmy.world

138 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4853884

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4853256

To whom it may concern.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jwt@programming.dev 8 points 3 days ago (2 children)

operate in != run from

If you want an apt example of a company 'run from' America not allowed to 'operate in' another jurisdiction:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_of_Twitter_in_Brazil

[–] DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I still don't understand how Twitter operates in other countries. It's accessible because it's a part of the world wide web. When people use Twitter are they not reaching out to the servers located in America?

[–] jwt@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

They're not accessible anymore from a jurisdiction if said jurisdiction which rules they are violating decides to change their networking policies. And because twitter likes to be accessible, twitter decided to comply with the rules eventually. You seem intentionally obtuse btw.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Some thoughts: (1) networks don't necessarily run according to judicial borders.
(2) you also have to penalize the use of rerouting tools, which Brazil seems to have done.
(3) it became incorrect to refer to it as "world wide web"

[–] jwt@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

(1) Agreed of course, but I don't see much of an issue there. You try to get a 100% coverage on your blockade, but 99% will move twitter to compliance too. same goes for (2). As for (3), I'm not really sure why you directed that at me.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I think it's dangerous to be unscathed by governments deciding which publishers publish "truth", and which don't.

To not care if the "law" applies to 100% of the population, or only 95%. Some more equal under the law than others.

I bring up 3, because the idea behind www was to counteract the points above.

Imagine the same techniques used by a government you do not agree with. It's very scary, no?

[–] jwt@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That has nothing to do with what I was answering to OP (who seems to have a difficult time translating 'operating in' to 'being reachable from'), I don't know why you are trying to debate (?) me on something else completely. Same goes for the www, I've never called it that.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm sorry your anger doesn't allow you to see the connection between the technical implementation, and philosophy of www, and your own answer to OPs question.

[–] jwt@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago

I'm not angry, that's in your mind. You seem to have a habit of linking things that shouldn't be linked. Good day.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Apparently, it works by fining users that visit the site. See chapter "Blocking".

How nice, a government that puts criminal penalties on it's citizens reading the (according to them) wrong things. Banning technologies like VPNs.