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.

>>avianl+ma2
its more complex than that. There are many agreements you can make younger than that. Kids can, for example, buy services such as transport (e.g. the monthly bus tickets my daughter bought at 18) that are subject to legally binding agreements. They can buy things in general, on and offline. You can enter into employment contracts in general at 16, and for some limited exceptions even younger.