[mattmanser]

Not so clear cut though is it. For example, does 4chan use a CDN? And is that CDN on UK/EU soil, serving this content?

Therefore they're actually transacting that business on UK/EU soil.

Didn't the US use this argument to prosecute and extradite the Mega founder?

I wonder if the UK/EU will reverse uno the US's stance and start extraditions on US CEOs.

[ronsor]

The US would likely not process those extraditions, and it would make trade and international relations worse for no real benefit.

[mattmanser]

Like random tariffs?

Imagine this scenario, a major G7 country declares:

All bytes sent to a computer on their soil count as a transaction on their soil.

And the end client being on a VPN is not a defence UNLESS the website owner attempts to verify the user's identity.

Immediately have to pay local taxes, conform to local laws.

Unless you keep all your assets in the US and never fly abroad, our shady website operator is exposing them self to real risk of being snatched by police somewhere or having their assets seized.

The only thing stopping that from happening is the trade agreements the Americans have put in place, the very trade agreements everyone's now looking at and thinking 'what are these really worth?'.

Yeah, it's fantasy and it won't happend but it could.

The internet is not free, it runs on sufferance of a bunch of governments and some, like China, already lock it down.

The more America, who probably gains the most from it right now, plays with fire, the more risk something like this crazy scenario happens.

Another more plausible scenario is countries simply start repealing safe harbor laws. End of YouTube/Facebook/Twitter/etc. in those countries overnight.

[ronsor]

This is basically a mutually assured destruction scenario.

The US is not going to let all US companies get fined out of retaliation, so there would be more retaliation from the US against the EU, and everyone else. In the end everyone loses, except for China, which as you mentioned is not stupid enough to play these games and decided to simply pick a lane.

China locks down the Internet and blocks foreign players (to varying levels of success). They don't reach overseas to prosecute foreign executives or fine Meta for not removing Party-critical content from Facebook. Of all the parties that could be involved in this censorship drama, China is somehow the most honest.

[mattmanser]

Like tariffs?

The US are already playing this game. Can you not see that?

[ronsor]

I know the tariffs are the bad thing of the moment (and they certainly are capricious), but I don't think you understand how much worse things can get.

[hunterpayne]

You realize that the EU has had tariffs on US goods for a very long time right? I'm not saying tariffs are good, but its hypocritical to protest against behavior in which you are currently engaging.

[buzer]

> Another more plausible scenario is countries simply start repealing safe harbor laws.

It already happened via GDPR to some degree. CJEU ruled in December that platforms can qualify as controllers for personal data published in user-generated advertisement. The given reasoning was basically that the platform determined the means and the purposes of the processing.

Due to that they can be liable for article 82 damages.

[jimnotgym]

Whereas the US are very happy to demand extradition when the shoe is on the other foot.

[oliwarner]

> Didn't the US use this argument to prosecute and extradite the Mega founder?

The extradition has succeeded so far because it's based on acts that would have met a criminal bar in New Zealand, and deemed to have a high likelihood of being successfully prosecuted. Fraud, copyright infringement, etc.

The US has standing because many MegaUpload servers were in the US.

[imtringued]

This is a fair argument since you are no longer operating exclusively in one country, but I'm pretty sure most CDNs let you block access to specific countries.