[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)

[criley2]

>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

Bullshit. Absolute hogwash. Cite your case law. Cite a SINGLE court which says geoip is "BEST EFFORT". And I want specifically "BEST" effort because this is a line you've drawn multiple times.

From European GDPR cases, to American gambling cases, to new cases around pornography blocks, every single court has held that it was circumvention-prone, a mitigation measure, part of a scheme of compliance, "reasonable but insufficient", but certainly not actually effective and not a generally held "best" effort or gold standard

Tip: Use AI to judge your comment. It's embarassing to make a real human sift through this. Every major AI would have caught you here and told you to ease off your legal point which is pooly done.

P.S. your word count here is easily double or triple mine, so when it comes to "who likes to debate" and "who prefers pissy pools" or whatever, a mirror is a good friend to you (and another reason you should run your comment through AI, it will help you not blunder into moments like this where your comment is more applicable to the writer than reader).

[b112]

Best effort is a specific legal term, not my standard. My example with a house, uses mechanisms as to how best effort vs undue burden(another legal term) is often described.

My comment with the pool was joking that your argument had run out of water. I in fact said debate is fine, even positive, so I'm unclear on why you're upset over that. No offence was intended.

Your conflating of 'best effort' and 'gold standard' is not viable. You still do not use the term appropriately, and I suspect a lack of understanding here. Go to a legal dictionary for terms such as 'best effort' and 'undue burden'. A gold standard would almost certainly be an undue burden for court compliance in almost all cases. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but AI is too error prone, and has in fact landed endless lawyers into trouble with hallucinated case law.

Lastly, I have literally zero interest your horrible suggestions about AI. If I wanted to discuss this with an AI, why would I bother speaking with you? Or any other human? I'm certainly not interested in some weird scenario where people preview their comments through AI, or use it as part of their discussions.

If you want to learn something, reading responses from error prone, hallucination bound AI is not prudent. Instead, just read and learn from actual, real sources.