zlacker

The problem here is that the default assumption is that everyone on the internet is under the jurisdiction of US law, when the majority in fact are not.

These are global platforms with global membership, simply stating that “if it is free speech in America it should be allowed” isn’t a workable concept.

>>comte7+(OP)
How about saying that if it is free speech in America it should be allowed in America, but censored in countries where it is against the law? It seems very easy to say.

>>pessim+a4
So different users aren’t able to see full threads based on their location? You’re seemingly randomly able to respond in some circumstances and not others?

When there are people all over the globe participating in the same discussion, you can’t realistically have an odd patchwork of rules. It’s very common for people on this forum, for example, to be commenting on their experiences in Europe, where free speech is heavily curtailed in comparison to the states. How do you manage such threads?

>>comte7+(OP)
Why not? Sounds workable to me.

>>comte7+f8
> "So different users aren’t able to see full threads based on their location? You’re seemingly randomly able to respond in some circumstances and not others?"

Of course. That is what they've demanded, so that is what they get.

> "When there are people all over the globe participating in the same discussion, you can’t realistically have an odd patchwork of rules. "

On the contrary: You must have this. As a matter of law. There is no alternative, other than withdrawing from those countries entirely and ignoring the issue of people accessing your site anyway (which is what happens in certain extreme situations, states under sanctions, etc)

> " It’s very common for people on this forum, for example, to be commenting on their experiences in Europe, where free speech is heavily curtailed in comparison to the states. How do you manage such threads? "

Here are the options:

1) Do not do business in those countries.

2) Provide different services for those countries to reflect their legal requirements.

There is no way to provide a globally consistent experience because laws are often in mutual conflict (one state will for example prohibit discussion of homosexuality and another state will prohibit discriminating on the basis of sexual preference)

>>comte7+f8
They already do for copyrighted works eg region locked for Disney movies or World Cup games

>>comte7+(OP)
That's correct and that's actually how it works right now (Germany has different speech laws and Twitter attempts to comply with them[1]). However, it is an American company and it's not unreasonable to follow the American law in America. I would also think it's quite possible to use the network effect of the service to bully places like Germany into allowing greater expression, or simply providing it on the sly by making it easy for Germans to access what they want. Although, I do see the EU is trying to do the same in reverse, probably to (as is its wont) to create a tech customs union that allows its own tech unicorns to appear (something it has failed miserably at, in part because of its restrictive laws).

If I had a tool that could (at least attempt to) filter out anti-semitism or Holocaust denial, then Germany could have that set to "on" to comply with the law. I'm all for democracies deciding what laws they want.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-hatecrime-idUSKBN...