zlacker

>>ANewbu+(OP)
How do you "pull out" of the UK if you are not a UK company, you are a US company, hosted in the US, and proxied by Fastly. There's nothing to do? You do not need to abide by UK laws, even if your website is accessible from there.

>>sammy2+xd
The UK government does not care. The law applies no matter where you are hosted, where you are incorporated or who is proxiying you.

>You do not need to abide by UK laws, even if your website is accessible from there.

The UK government does not agree.

>>consta+xe
But its still not the UK government's decision. They don't have sovereignty over other nations, as much as they'd like to think they do.

All they can legally do is bitch and moan and order UK ISPs to block. There's no action they can legally take against Imgur.

>>theweb+zf
The US does exert its laws extraterritorially when there is a sufficient nexus to US interests too. Why wouldn't the UK be allowed to do so?

>>weinzi+uh
The UK? How many divisions do they have?

Why shouldn’t Russia be allowed to exert their laws extraterritorially? Or Mali? Or Sudan? Or the Iranians? Or China? Or Israel?

What you’re asking for is the end of the internet, full stop.

>>iamnot+ou
They are! Russia has been fining Google increasingly insane amounts for blocking state media [1]. It's the company's prerogative of whether they want to have a legal entity falling under the country's jurisdiction and whether employees want to travel there and risk being held criminally liable.

It's likely simpler to just block access to the country's IP ranges (or ignore!) and move on.

[1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxvnwkl5kgo

>>phi0+qF
> It's the company's prerogative of whether they want to have a legal entity falling under the country's jurisdiction

Except in this case, Imgur does not have a legal entity falling under the UK's jurisdiction. They are purely a US based company. It's not like Google, Apple, etc. that have offices in the UK.

This particular fine is the UK trying to extend its jurisdiction to entities that it has no sovereign authority over.

Just because some UK user might visit my website doesn't mean I now have to follow all UK laws if I don't actually do business there, and don't intend to.

Blocking the traffic is how we end up with the balkanization of the internet.

>>theweb+SK
> Just because some UK user might visit my website doesn't mean I now have to follow all UK laws if I don't actually do business there

That's exactly what it means.

On what basis should you be allowed to violate British law when interacting with a British resident? Because you're not under British jurisdiction? That would be incredibly illogical. Not only would it mean that people and companies under British jurisdiction are privileged by the British legal system over those in other jurisdictions, but it would also raise questions about the need for such legislation if the British legal system accepts that it's okay for people from other jurisdictions to violate it.

>>Ray20+JI1
> On what basis should you be allowed to violate British law when interacting with a British resident?

If all I do is host a website that serves images, and I'm not hosting nor operating out of the UK, why would I be subject to their laws? Just because it's accessible globally means I now have to factor in every possible regulation from around the world?

The burden shouldn't fall on me, the website operator, to block UK traffic because they want to restrict content or enforce age verification. Nor should they be able to fine me. It's up to the UK to have UK based ISPs block my site then.

Obviously a different story if I'm deliberately offering a paid service to UK citizens, or advertising to them, etc.

But to suggest that every website owner now needs to be aware of, and follow, ever nation's unique regulations will spell the death of the internet as a global network.