Ok… but your analogy doesn’t make any sense in this context.
X isn’t eating lunch next to the EU. They’re selling sandwiches over the internet in the EU. The EU sent a letter pointing out that his sandwiches in the past have contained shit and we now have laws in place regarding shit filled sandwiches, so do not sell sandwiches that contain shit within our borders or we will pursue legal action against you.
Also, quit your bullshit. If the EU just blocked it outright there’d be a huge outcry about them censoring free speech.
Twitter International Unlimited Company
One Cumberland Place
Fenian Street
Dublin 2
D02 AX07
Ireland
VAT ID IE9803175Q
They’re sitting in Europe selling lunches. More specifically, ads. They’re also sitting in Europe preparing lunches, more specifically, they have servers here. If they don’t want to be beholden to EU law then they should stop doing both.
I really don’t understand your point at all. The EU sent them a letter pointing out that they have new laws and will be enforcing them.
It’s on X to follow those laws, not follow them and pay the consequences, or geofence their service.
If Europeans want to go the site they will if its blocked or not, if it’s geofenced or not. VPNs exist. The point isn’t blocking X or preventing people from reaching it. It’s serving notice that they will be subject to the law
And it’s not like there’s one big ISP run by the EU where they can flip a switch to block X. They’d have to force each ISP to do it.
My point is that the Internet is international, it’s not Europes play space to enforce its shit on everyone else in the world.
Euros fucked over the globe enforcing their shit on everyone for hundreds of years, and they still sit back today and demand everyone follows their rules despite not even being European.
If you don’t want your people to visit these sites, you fucking block them.
The internet is indeed international, and also very much subject to territorial law. This is not new.
If you bother to read the article or the letter, no one is trying to keep people from accessing the site. They want X as a site to stop actively and knowingly pushing false information.
Imperialism is bad, so we have common ground there. However, not really relevant here.
Sincerely, have a good one and take care of yourself.
I cannot stress this enough. The EU isn’t trying to keep people from going to the site. They’re just saying if the people running the site Elon Musk knowingly use it to spread false information they will be legally liable.
I mean, pornhub pulled access to their website from my state and others because of state laws. Surely it couldn’t be that hard for X
It’s not an out difficulty but the onus of responsibility.
If someone next to you is eating lunch you don’t like, you don’t ask them to leave the room. You leave instead.
Ok… but your analogy doesn’t make any sense in this context. X isn’t eating lunch next to the EU. They’re selling sandwiches over the internet in the EU. The EU sent a letter pointing out that his sandwiches in the past have contained shit and we now have laws in place regarding shit filled sandwiches, so do not sell sandwiches that contain shit within our borders or we will pursue legal action against you.
Also, quit your bullshit. If the EU just blocked it outright there’d be a huge outcry about them censoring free speech.
Thanks for your effort, guy’s as thick as a brick, but you kept in there.
Usually I avoid internet arguments, these arguments were so bad though that I couldn’t resist
No, X is selling lunches at its house. Europeans are walking in off the street and entering it.
The Internet is not the physical domain of Europeans.
If you don’t want Europeans going to the site, block it on your fucking end.
They’re sitting in Europe selling lunches. More specifically, ads. They’re also sitting in Europe preparing lunches, more specifically, they have servers here. If they don’t want to be beholden to EU law then they should stop doing both.
I really don’t understand your point at all. The EU sent them a letter pointing out that they have new laws and will be enforcing them. It’s on X to follow those laws, not follow them and pay the consequences, or geofence their service.
If Europeans want to go the site they will if its blocked or not, if it’s geofenced or not. VPNs exist. The point isn’t blocking X or preventing people from reaching it. It’s serving notice that they will be subject to the law
And it’s not like there’s one big ISP run by the EU where they can flip a switch to block X. They’d have to force each ISP to do it.
My point is that the Internet is international, it’s not Europes play space to enforce its shit on everyone else in the world.
Euros fucked over the globe enforcing their shit on everyone for hundreds of years, and they still sit back today and demand everyone follows their rules despite not even being European.
If you don’t want your people to visit these sites, you fucking block them.
The internet is indeed international, and also very much subject to territorial law. This is not new.
If you bother to read the article or the letter, no one is trying to keep people from accessing the site. They want X as a site to stop actively and knowingly pushing false information.
Imperialism is bad, so we have common ground there. However, not really relevant here.
Sincerely, have a good one and take care of yourself.
If my server is in Europe and I am offering access to European citizens I should be allowed to follow United States laws because…
You don’t allow access to people, the default is everyone can visit a site. Sites have to put extra effort into blocking people.
I cannot stress this enough. The EU isn’t trying to keep people from going to the site. They’re just saying if
the people running the siteElon Musk knowingly use it to spread false information they will be legally liable.I can’t help replying to this.
Depends on how you build the site, my dude. You can easily code it to block everyone and then putting in exceptions takes extra effort.
How many more rakes do you want to step on?
Doesnt work like that.