| ▲ | SunshineTheCat 2 days ago |
| I don't mean this to be as insulting as it may, but the UK government trying to police US businesses has always felt like a toddler trying to ground his mom. |
|
| ▲ | mikkupikku 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Maybe a very elderly parent, trying to ground their adult child who they are now dependent on. |
| |
| ▲ | busterarm a day ago | parent [-] | | As an adult child in such a situation, it's actually worse than a toddler... |
|
|
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | riazrizvi 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I see it as a problem of inconsistency that is common in situations where a parochial performer has their moments on the big stage, and follows it up with faceplants. |
|
| ▲ | DamonHD a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://www.best-poems.net/milne/disobedience.html |
|
| ▲ | jay_kyburz a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't think its unreasonable for a government to ask company to abide by its laws if it want to do business with its citizens. Where I think they are going wrong is that they are trying to levy fines rather than just blocking the business. Oh, and the whole age verification thing is bonkers. I'm a parent of 2 teenagers, I don't think its asking too much for a parent to be responsible for what children see and do on the internet. |
| |
| ▲ | mikkupikku a day ago | parent | next [-] | | If you honestly believe you can control what your two teens see and do on the internet, you've either got them chained up in a closet, or you're wrong. | | |
| ▲ | gorgoiler a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Having worked with children from 10 all the way up to 18 in a residential setting, I couldn’t agree more. In a way they are like addicts: you love them and want the best for them but you absolutely have to be on your guard for egregious breaches of trust cropping up without warning. Children / teenagers / young adults can be driven by curiosity, peers, and lack of judgment into all kinds of dreadful behavior, and it can come from the least likely ones just as much as the obviously naughty ones. The best we can do is to warn them in advance, accept that mistakes will be made anyway, and support them in learning from their mistakes. Keep at it for even a short while and you too can experience the shock of how your most charming, academically brilliant, upstanding star pupil is found throwing up a bottle of vodka she just drank! | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | With parenting it’s not a case where you have 100% airtight control over everything with no possible leaks. It’s a spectrum where you impose expectations combined with some controls. The parents I’ve seen who give up and make no efforts because they think it’s impossible to perfect control everything don’t have great outcomes. This applies to everything from internet to drinking alcohol and more. | | |
| ▲ | mikkupikku 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | I went through it and circumvented it completely in the 90s when the only way online was a computer with a modem in the living room. It's so much easier today, its absolutely trivial to circumvent anything you're doing. Old smartphones from "a friend's brother" are easily hidden and can be used on wifi you don't control. All it takes is the kid wanting to go behind your back, the rest becomes easy for them. The only chance you have is establishing a good relationship with your kid and instilling good values. You can't actually control them online unless you lock down their life like a supermax prison. |
| |
| ▲ | jay_kyburz a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is a fairly big gap between chained in the closet and completely free access to the internet. There is also a lot difference between catching a glimpse of some porn and spending hours in their bedroom exploring the darkest corners of the internet. I don't have them chained up, but I'm also not concerned they are become radicalized, or damaging themselves watching snuff films and goatse. |
| |
| ▲ | HDThoreaun a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is not possible to censor the internet when VPNs are freely available. The more you try the more it backfires. By telling your kids they cant see a website they are sure to visit it, all they have to do is google for a free vpn. | | |
| ▲ | ninalanyon a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > It is not possible to censor the internet when VPNs are freely available. The obvious next step is to ban VPNs too or to block connections to their servers. | | |
| ▲ | HDThoreaun a day ago | parent [-] | | There are ways around this too. When the VPN entrance point is a static IP a ban may work but what happens when a product shows up that spins up dynamic VPSs in the public cloud? All the cloud providers have free trials that let people do this for free forever. Sounds difficult but surely people will come up with a streamlined approach if push comes to shove. Even in china where using a VPN is a major crime they are unable to stop people from using them. | | |
| ▲ | gorgoiler a day ago | parent [-] | | Off the top of my head here are some ways you could fairly easily shut down VPNs. The big one is to start whitelisting good protocols only. That means everything must be https and you have to at least pass the hostname in plaintext. Random traffic on UDP ports is now illegal as it is assumed to be VPN traffic. Another one is to pass a law telling ISPs to flag customers with traffic patterns only to a single IP address, set of IP addresses, or a single ASN. This means that you can’t just tunnel everything to your VPS in Amsterdam. You might also pass a law that still allows, say, ssh and random UDP traffic, but with the provision that bandwidth on any non HTTPS ports is capped at 200kbps. You only use ssh for running a shell after all — why would you need more than that! /s ASNs are a fun feature of the internet in that there are a lot of them but they are finite and scale on the order of organised human activity, mostly businesses. That means it is eminently tractable to categorize them all and regulate traffic from residential ISPs to commercial services ISPs only, and throttle traffic from home users to hosting providers. This already happens — try connecting to Reddit from anything other than a residential IP address. | | |
| ▲ | grayhatter 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Random traffic on UDP ports is now illegal as it is assumed to be VPN traffic. You do realize that things other than VPNs use UDP right? The whole post is so nonsensical I would have assumed it's all sarcasm, but the single tag in the middle has me confused. | |
| ▲ | cma 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can do UDP like VPNs over https, by opening multiple channels and round robining packets to get around head of line blocking. | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | inkyoto a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Disruption at the technical level will prove excessively convoluted and impractical to enforce, for censorship-resistant VPN technologies continue to evolve at an accelerated pace – Amnezia and XRay2 serve as exemplary cases in point. A far more expedient course lies in legislative control: the imposition of a licensing requirement for VPN usage, coupled with punitive measures – fines and imprisonment – for defiance thereof. A few well-chosen prosecutions, conducted publicly with a fanfare and pomp and without leniency, would suffice to instil both fear and obedience amongst the populace. As ever, the familiar refrain of «think of the children» would provide an acceptable veneer of moral justification to soothe the public conscience. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Ray20 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >It is not possible to censor the internet when VPNs are freely available. What's stopping VPN providers from being forced to censor the internet? | | |
| ▲ | HDThoreaun 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Other VPN providers not being forced to censor the internet? VPN providers in the US will never have to bow to censorship as long as the first amendment is doing its thing |
| |
| ▲ | jay_kyburz a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think buy the time your kids can order, pay for, and configure a VPN they are old enough to look at boobies on the internet. |
| |
| ▲ | cyanydeez a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The problem with relying on parents is that they're either reckless or simply unable to prevent the kids from smoking. By the time they're teenagers, it's pretty easy for them to access anything on the internet regardless of the controls implemented. 4chan is a cesspool, and society is worse off letting it fester, but you arn't solving this problem by "personal responsibility" of parents. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed a day ago | parent | next [-] | | You can legally order pipe tobacco and cigars on the internet in the US without showing ID. When I was a kid you could do it with wine too, and I doubt that's changed. I don't find it to be a problem. | | |
| ▲ | malfist a day ago | parent [-] | | Depends on the state. You absolutely cannot order alcohol online in Kentucky | | |
| ▲ | mothballed a day ago | parent [-] | | buywinesonline.com (random retailer I found) says they do Buy Wines Online currently does not ship alcohol to AL, MI, MS, UT, HI, AK Says it requires an "adult signature" but anyone who's signed for fedex/ups knows they don't check your ID. I can say, when I was in high school, they did not check... | | |
| ▲ | malfist a day ago | parent [-] | | Kentucky has some weird laws. You can ship, but only if the distillery makes less than so many gallons of stuff per year | | |
| ▲ | lazide a day ago | parent [-] | | There is a wide gulf between ‘your county sheriff will get angry if they find out’ and ‘UPS/Fedex will not deliver it in a nondescript brown box’. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jay_kyburz a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think smoking is a little different for a few reasons. It's physically addictive with harsh withdrawal symptoms that makes it difficult to quit; and it has significant healthcare costs for the wider community when smokers eventually get sick and die prematurely. Nobody is going to get addicted and die prematurely from reading 4chan. Cleaning what you consider a cesspool is not the job of the government. These laws are about kids stumbling into the cesspool before they are ready. Parents can choose to just not give their kids phones till they are 12 or 13 (highschool). Before that, internet access is on locked down devices in the family room with somebody else around. Personally I think once your kids are about 13-14 you have probably had your chance to pass on your morals, they need to be mentally prepared to encounter bad stuff on the internet and deal with it. | | |
| ▲ | cyanydeez a day ago | parent | next [-] | | social media is clearly physically addictive. America's turned into a neonazi democracy partly because of this. | | |
| ▲ | exoverito a day ago | parent [-] | | Psychologically perhaps, but to say physically addictive is not precise. The government in general has been becoming increasingly authoritarian and centralized far before social media, see the abuses of the CIA and MK ULTRA, Operation Mockingbird, COINTELPRO, the War on Terror. You use the term neonazi, yet I hope you're honest enough to recognize the left also has dark authoritarian impulses. It was only a few years ago that we had ruinous lockdowns, widespread censorship, illegal mandates for experimental medical interventions, mostly peaceful riots, a 30% spike in homicides, anarcho-tyranny with the prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Penny, etc. | | |
| ▲ | ares623 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | How is nicotine different from dopamine? Both are addictive chemistry. One comes in little sticks, the other comes in a black glass and metal slab. | |
| ▲ | cyanydeez 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Part of cigerettes adficrive physical is the action and cues. I agree thwres no chemical component but addictiond are broadee than just external chemical iintroduction. | |
| ▲ | immibis a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is the democrat party on the left? |
|
| |
| ▲ | immibis a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | There used to be speculation that smokers actually cost less to the government, since they get lung cancer and die before they would get their pensions, or soon after, and therefore the government wanted people to smoke. I mean, point 1 in favour of this theory is the fact that tobacco is legal, while most drugs aren't. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | lofaszvanitt 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You are missing the point. US has a lot of harmful cultural exports and one of them is streaming, where people degrade and humiliate themselves for money and the like. Then there is yt shorts, then 4chan, then social media. These slowly degrade societies, like it or not. At least someone tries to do something to weed out the utter, batshit crazy adults, actually childminded idiots, who think the world is their playground. Any way I see it this is a slow virus, a weapon of sorts. Just politicians usually have their heads lodged in their own back orifice, hence slow reacting. |
| |
| ▲ | grayhatter 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > These slowly degrade societies, like it or not. So, thought crimes? | | |
| ▲ | 6r17 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | This is not reddit. I do not understand how such low hanging opinions are on this. There have been publications and tons of enactments from both govs, research labs, companies just sucking out every social media. It's not like we are not warning you, you have netflix, amazon, google, whatever you want - somehow pirating an American movie is an offense in Europe - but abiding by the same logic is not acceptable - same goes for Assange and Snowden - why the did we abide with American shenanigans if that's just one sided ? And are you getting ready for the turn-over ? Because all it takes is some mad politicians - alternatives - and I'm not sure the status quo is going to last while AI is booming - more than that - people are increasingly hostile to US and it seems it's going to continue this way if the toddler attitude is kept over. | | |
| ▲ | xvector a day ago | parent | next [-] | | People can be as hostile to the US as they want, it's all noise until they develop comparable capabilities. | |
| ▲ | aydyn a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why do u put a space before a question mark? thats super weird bro u should try to learn anglais better |
| |
| ▲ | drawfloat a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Setting aside whether it’s true, that’s not a thought crime by any definition. | | |
| ▲ | grayhatter 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | The argument as I understood it was 4chan's existence, degrades society. 4chan's whole gimmick is that you can say whatever you want, because you don't have to identify yourself when you say it. It's a way for Internet denizens scream their intrusive thoughts into the pseudovoid. If expressing intrusive thoughts makes society worse, and should be controlled. That, arguably makes expressing thoughts a crime. You shouldn't be allowed to think or say thing. I guess you could insist that thinking is different from expressing, and that thinking is fine as long as you repress the inate human trait and desire of expression... But I feel that's a stupid line in the sand to draw given my intent was to point out 4chan doesn't make society worse, tolerating ideas you don't like generally improves society. It's how you behave that matters. In other words, If 4chan didn't exist, people would behave better. If you weren't exposed to those thoughts and ideas, you would behave better. If you didn't have a thought.... | | |
| ▲ | lofaszvanitt 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your reasoning is way off. You’re a human being, not some creature running on autopilot. And you’re fully capable of thinking and acting with some intelligence. What’s happening online just drags things down. People chasing clicks, money, and attention by any means. When platforms like 4chan or influencers resort to gimmicks or self objectification to get views, it encourages people to act less like thoughtful humans and more like they’re reverting to base instincts - like animals. It normalizes shallow, attention-hungry behaviour and chips away at basic self-respect and awareness. One idiot can lead a hundred astray. Why is it ok for a young woman to put a paper bag on her head in a live chat session, in order to gain more subscribers? Or swallow insults after insults? Is this ok? I don't think so. You want to tolerate ideas like GGG movies and Dick Wadd gay videos where black guys sodomize whitebois acting as nazis and then piss in steel bowls and force them to drink it from said bowl? How do these "ideas" improve society hm? You need these things to be tolerated? This whole idea that anyone can do anything and people will decide what's best for them is absolute hogwash. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lofaszvanitt 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| |
| ▲ | hexbin010 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | James_K a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| US businesses can get bent. Half my country is rotten and hollowed out, all the shops replaced by Amazon. Screw them. Uber wants to come over here and put our local cabbies out of work, then bring them all back on lower wages with higher fees. Screw off. Air B&B destroys affordable housing all across Europe and turns cities into tourist hell. Oracle comes over here and they're trying their damnedest to get their hands on our valuable NHS data. Facebook (now Meta) comes over here and shows horrific content to young children, wrecking the mental health of teens, especially young girls. Twitter (now X) wants to pollute my country's politics with American fascist nonsense while its owner promises to donate hundreds of millions to far right political parties across the content. I don't want any of these “services” thank you very much. Inflict them on your own people, not us. American technology companies operate by finding technological solutions to evading the law, then counting on being too big to fail once regulators catch up. These companies do not provide innovative products, they abuse monopoly power to dominate industries. The Chinese are smart enough to make their own versions of all this stuff so that they aren't under the US yoke and I want the same here (sans the dictatorship of course). I want to replace every horrid US machine with something FOSS or publicly owned, and every regulatory step towards that is a win in my book. Maybe instead of turning your nose up at other countries that dare to regulate your tech overlords, you should try to get your politicians to do the same thing. |
| |
| ▲ | zettabomb a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Tough luck, if you don't like it, then you (or your government) should block those websites. It's not job of the US businesses nor US government to enforce another country's laws. | | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | James_K a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Let me put this very simply to you: if I go to a country where the age of consent is 14 and start a business streaming child porn to America, I should be stopped from doing that. This is the same principle with a lesser offence. | | |
| ▲ | zettabomb a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't disagree at all. But it would then be the American government's job and responsibility to block this. | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | pclmulqdq a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You will stopped from doing that by American law. The difference between this and that is that Ofcom believes it can regulate conduct that never touches British soil. Ofcom notably is not setting up a "great firewall," but instead sending takedown notices to websites about content that is already blocked from British IPs. | | |
| ▲ | jolmg a day ago | parent [-] | | > You will stopped from doing that by American law. The difference between this and that is that Ofcom believes it can regulate conduct that never touches British soil. You're showing yourself to believe that America can regulate conduct that never touches American soil. | | |
| ▲ | pclmulqdq a day ago | parent | next [-] | | America won't go after you. America will go after Americans who access your site and American ISPs will block your site. That's not America regulating your behavior. You're still free to do whatever you want. If you enter America, there may also be consequences, but you don't need to enter America. | | |
| ▲ | bluGill a day ago | parent | next [-] | | America may well go after you and we have a large military to do it with. most often a simple diplomatic message will shut you down - most countries have their own child porn laws, and the exceptions (if any) are going to face problems as this is something the us takes seriously. You picked a bad example -
there are many US crimes that you could get away with if done elsewhere within the local laws, it generally isn't seen as worth bothering with when done elsewhere if the other country doesn't care. | |
| ▲ | jolmg a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > If you enter America, there may also be consequences That isn't much different. Say an adult American drinks alcohol in America; then they travel to a country where alcohol is illegal. Should they be prosecuted in that country for having drank in America? | | |
| ▲ | pclmulqdq a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > That isn't much different There's a world of difference here. Ofcom is claiming to be able to shut down an American website for content generated in America, stored in America, and shown only to Americans. There are no UK citizens in this chain at all. This sets up Ofcom as having global censorship authority even over content seen elsewhere. > Should they be prosecuted in that country for having drank in America? In my opinion, no, but some countries are hardasses about this. If you want to do things that are illegal in certain places, you should not plan on traveling to those places. Usually, they will just refuse you entry but you kind of do put yourself at their mercy if you touch their soil. This is how the world works. | |
| ▲ | ricudis 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Singapore does exactly that, and they explicitly warn outbound Singaporean travelers that any drug use outside Singapore will be prosecuted as if it has happened in Singapore. | | |
| ▲ | jolmg 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | If it's just the outbound Singaporeans, that would be different because they'd at least have the citizenship to claim jurisdiction on. | | |
| ▲ | ricudis 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | They're warning everybody, not just Singaporeans. It's just that Singaporeans are the most likely to go travel abroad, have some fun, and then come back like nothing has happened. But if somebody inbound gets caught in a random drug test at the airport (they do that), he's going to be prosecuted just the same no matter their citizenship. There were several (in-)famous examples of this happening. |
|
| |
| ▲ | umanwizard a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Dunno about “should”, but they certainly can be. |
| |
| ▲ | hibern8 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | You must not remember the Kim Dotcom raid. | | |
| ▲ | pclmulqdq 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, extradition treaties are a thing, and I believe he wasn't a citizen of New Zealand so the US actually could make the request. The hypothetical above can be narrowed to "you are doing something completely legal in your country of citizenship or some other non-extradition country but illegal in the US" if you want to get more precise about it. |
|
| |
| ▲ | macinjosh 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We are America. We can do whatever we damn well please because we have the biggest guns and most money. Welcome to the how the world really works. Not saying it’s right. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | HeckFeck a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I've sympathy for what you're proposing - on-shoring our own tech - but the Online Safety Act is a terrible law and it should've been repealed yesterday. It will do nothing to advance those aims, and plenty to stifle innovation in the UK tech space. Ofcom can get fucked. | |
| ▲ | pclmulqdq a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So ban those businesses from operating in your region. Don't pretend that Ofcom can regulate the content that is viewed around the world just because you're upset about things in your country. | | |
| ▲ | James_K a day ago | parent [-] | | I bloody wish I could! Sadly, these things aren't up to me, and the companies involved would probably pay more bribes to your gangster president to get him to sanction our economy if we tried. | | |
| ▲ | pclmulqdq a day ago | parent [-] | | The US has great relations with many countries that ban AirBnB or Uber. The reason they operate in your country is because the people in your country want them. |
|
| |
| ▲ | hax0ron3 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If your countrymen want to use Uber, Air B&B, Oracle, and Facebook, should you try to stop them from doing it, even if you personally dislike those companies? You are making the same argument that Trump is making with the tariffs. Personally, while I can see some good arguments for protectionism, I'd rather have the choice to decide whether or not I want to buy Chinese products, rather than the government making the choice for me. | | |
| ▲ | mothballed a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Closer to the point: having Uber in a place with a licensed taxi trade is basically the same thing as removing licensing and then granting a monopoly on one business to operate taxis. So you two are on completely separate frames of thought. One party sees it as a matter of choice, the other sees it as removing choice because one party has a monopoly on avoiding the regulations. The issue here is IMO more so that the taxi driver should be able to operate a taxi business without a license without having to go through Uber. Ultimately what is happening in a lot of places is the guys with medallions will basically use agents of the state to violently enforce their racket (which Uber breaks up, but then monopolizes), or alternatively in some places in Latin America the entrenched taxi drivers will simply shoot to kill their competitors that don't have cartel sanctioned 'medallions.' | |
| ▲ | 6r17 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I personally think that FB, Uber, RBNB, Oracle, Google, Amazon, and literally every american SASS should be completely forbidden from Europe. Period no discussion at all. Given the state of current America, given the reactions even on this very post that do not see how Cambridge Analytics has damaged the entire world - yes, I think it would be safe to put a good 10 year ban on every US web tech. It would fasten up Europe and leave out the important decision to someone who can actually make a difference instead of being washed out by some reddit / twitter with fake russian bots. Let the economics just move away and make the decisions for people who are in a state of hypnosis instead of playing with mass control and then calling it "freedom". Keep your american movies and social networks please. Btw why is TikTok banned in US? | | |
| ▲ | aydyn a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Its cute that you think Europe has the ability to replace those services. | | |
| ▲ | 6r17 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I *personally* have a freaking orchestrator, mail server, git server, faster than rocksdb DATABASE ENGINE, freaking world of warcraft and faster than NGINX for static. It's cute that you think you have the capabilities to imagine what Europe can or cannot do. | | | |
| ▲ | selfhoster11 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We've got plenty of servers, electricity, network hardware and people who code. We are missing the oxygen in the room, which American services all collectively sucked out. Banning those services will open some potential for innovation. | | |
| ▲ | aydyn 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think what your missing is a regulatory framework that wont immediately screw you. Just look at how far behind you are with AI. AI is nascent so you have no excuse about "oxygen" or whatever. |
| |
| ▲ | oskarw85 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's cute that you think anyone is going to kiss your American ass. | | |
| ▲ | aydyn 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Top 3 messaging apps in europo 1) whatsapp (facebook) 2) telegram (incorporated in dubai) 3) messenger (also facebook lmao) |
|
| |
| ▲ | philwelch 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are there any other aspects of Xi Jinping Thought you think Europe should adopt? | | |
| ▲ | 6r17 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes I do - for example ; any American that wishes to make a company in Europe will need to have a European voucher which is the owner of the service - so the money doesn't flow out of the country trough some UberMornonization app with $millions to ultimately do colonization. There is 0 reason for us to let american suck away important infrastructure tools, benefits that goes with it, or even benefit from tax exemption trough the best company framework there can possibly exist. I still haven't got an answer here - why is TikTok US owned ? |
|
| |
| ▲ | James_K a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing Do some research on why these services are so attractive before you give your opinion on it being a good thing. What these companies are doing should be illegal under US law as well, but they have paid your president to make that issue go away. | | |
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | watwut 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Under no circumstances should be US businesses treated as authorities. They are not mom nor should have any kind of leadership position. |
| |
| ▲ | riazrizvi 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | No you’re right. Instead of a multi-billion dollar organization supporting the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people, serving directly their millions of customers, we would be better off running this with a team of Oxbridge literature and PPE alumni, armed with a hodgepodge of constituent letters accompanied by stiff emails by one or two members of parliament funded by god knows who, who otherwise have no skin in the game. | | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | watwut 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Corporations have skin in a game - namely to keep their power, prevent competition from arising, make sure the workers are squeezed with less options so that they demand less salaries. Capitalism works when there is a competition between companies. Corporations are everything but that. |
| |
| ▲ | michaelt 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | On the other hand, the limited size of the British market limits Parliament’s ability to pressure foreign companies. China may be able to bully Apple into letting it snoop on its citizens’ icloud backups, but when the UK wants the same illiberal snooping powers, with 10% the population it’s 90% easier to walk away. | | |
| ▲ | Vespasian a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It's quite ironic that they would have an easier time enforcing that if they were still part of the EU and could have been the deciding factor towards more regulation faster. The EU is big and rich enough to force Big Tech into submission under threat of loosing the market. | |
| ▲ | throwaway48476 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Significantly less than 10%. |
|
|