zlacker

>>ANewbu+(OP)
The UK has been doing this sort of stuff for at least a decade. For example they have the PIPCU which under the guise of copyright threatens 10 years in prison for sites not even in their jurisdiction.

https://torrentfreak.com/uk-police-launch-campaign-to-shut-d...

And with that, they have at the least gotten registrars not located in their jurisdicrion to transfer domains

https://easydns.com/blog/2013/10/08/whatever-happened-to-due...

>>naderm+Df1
The US has always claimed jurisdiction on foreign-hosted but US-accessible content.

Do people forget the owner of Megaupload being extradited? In many ways this is just catching up to the current US state.

And there's a lot of confusion here between basic consumer data protection laws and (IMHO massively overreaching) "Online Safety" laws. This isn't Imgur making a stand for free speech, this is Imgur wanting to track and sell user data - to which minors cannot consent. Putting on my tinfoil hat you could argue that many of these companies are trying to encourage this misunderstanding intentionally.

>>kimixa+rD1
The notion that a 17 year old cannot consent to user tracking is absurd

>>jobs_t+CH1
That’s because you’re looking at this ass backwards. The law determines an age at which a person is considered capable of making legally binding agreements, like providing consent. In the UK that’s 18, with some exceptions.

It would be absurd for the UK to create a special exception to allow underage youths to consent to user tracking at an age lower than the standard age for legal consent in any other context.