|
|
|
|
|
|
by ano-ther
1149 days ago
|
|
|
> Letting each country regulate the internet as they see fit is not sustainable. That only works if you live in the country which sets the rules. Sure, it’s a hassle, but every other industry deals with local regulation when doing international business. Trade agreements and trade blocs like the EU help somewhat in harmonizing legislation. > The information superhighway is being demolished by the egocentric greed of nations. Nah. Being able to choose your own laws is kind of the definition of statehood. If you want to business, adapt. Even within in the US, there is often different regulation across the states. |
|
|
Your tough-love rejoinder here feels wildly inappropriate for a place with "Hacker" in the name. This place should cherish some freedom & some ability to let different people & different places try different things. Instead we're all being tied down by any state anywhere that wants to make any rule.
How does this play keep playing out? What happens when rules are in conflict? What happens when Brazil decides one thing has to be said and another state decides that is fake news & can't be said. This post is about Brazil telling Google they can't advocate for their position at all, but what they're advocating against is compelled speech. What if that compelled speech directly conflict with another states laws?
I don't see any long term play where any of this ever gets better. The legal climate will only get worse and worse here. There's too many states, and there's next to no hope for making speech possible again. The legal condition for ability to think and speak freely has gotten incredibly murky in the past couple of years, and this tough love proposal to just deal with it, to respect everyone, obey all the laws: it has no quarter in my heart. It should be obviously terrible & awful a situation.