undefined | Better HN

0 pointsadastra226mo ago0 comments

Those companies were operating in Brazil. They had income booked in Brazil that could be impounded. They had employees there and offices and had to comply with local laws.

4chan isn’t in the UK. 4chan doesn’t have UK employees or offices. 4chan doesn’t book income on the UK. 4chan didn’t have any thing to do with the UK at all.

If this isn’t convincing, consider this: legally what is the difference from Afghanistan requesting anything not legally in compliance with Taliban’s laws be restricted? Would you support that? Legally that is what is going on here.

0 comments

rbanffy6mo ago

At one point Elon Musk fired every employee in Brazil in order to prevent that. It didn’t work - the were blocked. After that, Elon caved and named a local legal representative. X has been, since then, very cooperative.

Afghanistan can block anything they want within their borders and hold anyone in contempt if they refuse to comply. Whether I support that or not is immaterial - I would have to comply in order to continue making other content or services available to Afghanistan residents. Being entirely blocked would be worse.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

rbanffy6mo ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse