[b112]

No, not performative or token.

Blocking via geoip is a reasonable, best effort method in this case. It's doing a best effort to comply.

So not merely for performance without true compliance, or tokenism, which courts really frown upon.

[criley2]

>> judge in the area will feel that it was reasonably done

> No ... It's doing a best effort to comply

Generally when you repeat my statement back to me, you do so in agreement.

[b112]

Except that your statement contains the words 'performative' and 'token', which are the opposite of 'best effort' in a court.

And this is my point.

[criley2]

I disagree that "performative" and "token" are the opposite of "best effort".

The opposite of "best effort" is clearly "worst effort".

You seem to take offense with the idea that the company is doing "the minimum viable legal requirement" and you insist that "no, by doing what the judge says, it's actually an earnest and good attempt!"

If you actually think a company puts in even 0.1% more effort than a court requires of them, then I think you are very naive. Clearly the company could prevent VPNs from working if they wanted to invest the effort, like Netflix and China do, but they literally can't be bothered if the court doesn't require it.

I consider "minimum viable legal requirement to get past the judge" to be "performative and token" because they do NOT actually care if users access it, they want them too, they are only checking a liability box forced on them by the court and their legal department, doing the literal minimum.

[b112]

I'm not taking offense at any mythical company, and am being very specific as to what I am discussing.

As I've said, several times, the court will barely tolerate the minimum, and any form of token or performative, hand-wavy attempts to act as if complying, but not, will be taken poorly by the court.

Performative by its very root, is to put on a show, an act of story telling. This in not even remotely inline with compliance, but instead, pretending to do so, whilst not.

A good example of what I refer to:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/token

"something that you do, or a thing that you give someone, that expresses your feelings or intentions, although it might have little practical effect"

The 'little practical effect' is the key point here. A display without actual effect is not complying, even minimally. Courts care not for performances, displays, but instead actual fact.

You seem to have different definitions for these terms, perhaps even less used ones or colloquially derived. However, when one dives into the legal, terms take on a more rigid definition.

I don't see the value of this back and forth beyond my reply here, for there isn't much I can do, or that we can agree upon, if you use terms in ways that really aren't inline with how they will be taken.

And really, if you're simply going to argue that performance and token displays are somehow doing something meaningful, that's just plain incorrect.

[criley2]

> something that you do, or a thing that you give someone, that expresses your feelings or intentions, although it might have little practical effect

Perfect definition for the geo block, since it's trivial to bypass and billions worldwide use the technology to bypass such a check.

Thank you for providing a dictionary definition that perfectly captures how the businesses efforts are "token", since literally billions of humans can bypass it with minimal effort.

[b112]

I feel you're approaching this issue, not from the perspective of a court.

There have been endless court decisions, eg there's loads of case law, where geoip is specifically determined to be a best-effort for blocking.

It's not for show, it's not token, and it absolutely hands down works. Courts have had this specifically argued within their halls, and I believe I recall it being described as a house.

If a homeowner has a locking door, and windows, they've performed a 'best effort' in "keeping people out". Certainly someone can break the window, kick in the door, but those actions are beyond the reasonable efforts of a homeowner, without turning their home into fort knox. Put another way, the burden if perfect security, armed guards, cameras, impenetrable house is an undo burden.

This is akin to what we are seeing here. GeoIP is a reasonable, beyond best effort to block.

Can you name any other method of denying people from one region to connect to your services? Bearing in mind that you may not have the power to compel people to stop, as they may be outside your legal jurisdiction?

And of those methods, would they be arguable as an undue hardship? I assure you these things have been argued thousands of times in courts of law. And the whole point here is that geoip is used extensively, and found to be within the scope of compliance.

I should add, that at first you were trying to claim that your use of the words 'performative' and 'token' were fine, for they meant something different than the standard use. Now, you're trying to argue that geoip blocks are actually the issue, and that the words are as I've stipulated.

You seem to enjoy argument, and frankly that's perfectly fine from where I sit. Debate makes the world go, as they say.

But I think you're pulling at the wrong string here. We all make dives into a wrong pool. Get out, dry yourself off, and find another pool. Someone had an accident in this one, you don't want to stay in it. (Yes, that went weird)