[dgellow]

Are you aware it’s the case in the US too? I don’t see what is supposed to be bad or terrifying here. French regulators (why the scare quotes?) entire reason d‘être is what you frame as suspicious, but it’s pretty standard, the state governs the infrastructure in its territory

[petcat]

US regulators don't order ISPs to block websites.

The FBI will occasionally seize a domain, but only after a court order.

[stackghost]

>US regulators don't order ISPs to block websites.

Of course they do, mostly for intellectual property reasons.

[foota]

Through the courts though, right?

[coldtea]

If the courts are almost always sympathetic, does it matter?

[AnthonyMouse]

Also notice that the FBI has no jurisdiction over foreign domains. It happens that the .com (in addition to .us) registry is in the US, but e.g. the .ru registry is in Russia and not under the jurisdiction of US courts.

[inigyou]

Unless it's .tv or .to or .me or many others that are administered by organisations under the control of the US. The US seized Telegram's domain t.me by using an "OFAC sanction" whatever that is.

[one33seven]

In germany it's an organization of the biggest copyright holders that make ISPs block sites, without any court order.

[crest]

What make it even dumber is that following their block lists is voluntary for ISPs. The CUII is just a cabal of ISPs and intellectual "property" holders.

[pembrook]

This is a red herring.

We're not arguing about whether it is standard for governments to attempt to exercise maximal control.

We're arguing about whether governments executing censorship regimes via ISPs (like the Chinese Communist Party) without any balanced legal proceedings is a good thing.

And no, it does not happen like that in the US.

[inigyou]

Is it the norm in France for the regulator to block gambling sites without a court process? Polymarket is obviously a gambling site, so if so, this is no surprise. Polymarket can probably challenge the decision in a court process.

[Hacker_Yogi]

Sorry if I come across as being pedantic but it's actually the Communist Party of China - the CPC, even though many, esp. in the US, use the wrong abbreviation - CCP.

[Antibabelic]

It is pedantic. Saying that people should say CPC instead of CCP adds nothing to the conversation. If it grinds your gears then maybe starting with organizations like the Encyclopedia Britannica[0] rather than random Hacker News commenters might prove more effective.

[0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Chinese-Communist-Party

[inigyou]

Um actually it's 中国共产党

[smolder]

Chinese Communist Party or Communist Party of China makes little difference. There is a clear convention and no clear reason to change it.