cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4853884
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4853256
To whom it may concern.
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4853884
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4853256
To whom it may concern.
What do you mean by operating in the EU? Twitter is run from America
And it’s fine to continue to operate in the US.
But if it doesn’t abide by EU laws then it can’t operate in the EU.
America doesn’t set the worlds laws
I understand each government can have its own regulation about what websites should be accessible. I still don’t understand how Twitter operates in the EU. It’s a part of the world wide web. My understanding of how the internet works is that users reach out to the server, which in twitters case is in the US
Twitter operates servers in the EU. They will have at least Frankfurt server. Probably UK and probably elsewhere.
It’s geographically closer, so reduces latency and server load (faster to complete a request, faster to discard allocated resources).
It also gives redundancy. If Frankfurt DC explodes, the system will fall back to the next closest DC (probably London).
So let’s say that the EU DC stops existing. And requests go over the ocean to the US.
Twitter still has customers in the EU. They are still making money from EU citizens. Because twitter isn’t free. It costs money to manage, develop and run. Twitter tries to recoup those costs via adverts and subscription services.
So let’s say that twitter is no longer allowed to extract money from the EU. The EU bans companies advertising on twitter.
Any companies that have business in the EU (like selling to EU citizens) are no longer allowed to advertise on twitter.
Paypal, visa etc is no longer allowed to take payments from EU citizens for twitter services.
Any EU service that has twitter integrations is no longer allowed to charge for twitter features.
Basically, twitter has no way of getting money from the EU.
Why would twitter spend money to access the EU population. It’s a cost sink. Dead weight.
There is no growth. Getting 50 million new EU users means a massive cost increase.
Plus paying for that extra load on (say) US based servers, and their international backbone links. (Just because you can reach a server on the other side of the world for “free”, doesn’t mean commercial services can pump terabytes of data internationally for free).
So yeh, the servers could stay located in the US where twitter operations HQ is. Twitter could disband their international headquarters, so they no longer have companies in the EU.
But they wouldn’t be able to get any money from EU citizens. And if they tried to circumvent the rules, then they can be blocked by DNS and BGP. So the only way to access twitter is by a VPN.
That didn’t work well in Brazil, and twitter caved in to the demands of the Brazil government.
I really appreciate your answer!
In practice, we could sever the connection between EU internet and the rest of the internet.
Maybe whitelist a set of ideas that are allowed to pass through the great eu firewall.
Or maybe, just maybe, fine companies that commit criminal acts.
There really is a fine line between turning into an authoritarian regime and doing basic police work, right?
operate in != run from
If you want an apt example of a company ‘run from’ America not allowed to ‘operate in’ another jurisdiction:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_of_Twitter_in_Brazil
I still don’t understand how Twitter operates in other countries. It’s accessible because it’s a part of the world wide web. When people use Twitter are they not reaching out to the servers located in America?
They’re not accessible anymore from a jurisdiction if said jurisdiction which rules they are violating decides to change their networking policies. And because twitter likes to be accessible, twitter decided to comply with the rules eventually. You seem intentionally obtuse btw.
Some thoughts: (1) networks don’t necessarily run according to judicial borders.
(2) you also have to penalize the use of rerouting tools, which Brazil seems to have done.
(3) it became incorrect to refer to it as “world wide web”
(1) Agreed of course, but I don’t see much of an issue there. You try to get a 100% coverage on your blockade, but 99% will move twitter to compliance too. same goes for (2). As for (3), I’m not really sure why you directed that at me.
I think it’s dangerous to be unscathed by governments deciding which publishers publish “truth”, and which don’t.
To not care if the “law” applies to 100% of the population, or only 95%. Some more equal under the law than others.
I bring up 3, because the idea behind www was to counteract the points above.
Imagine the same techniques used by a government you do not agree with. It’s very scary, no?
That has nothing to do with what I was answering to OP (who seems to have a difficult time translating ‘operating in’ to ‘being reachable from’), I don’t know why you are trying to debate (?) me on something else completely. Same goes for the www, I’ve never called it that.
I’m sorry your anger doesn’t allow you to see the connection between the technical implementation, and philosophy of www, and your own answer to OPs question.
Apparently, it works by fining users that visit the site. See chapter “Blocking”.
How nice, a government that puts criminal penalties on it’s citizens reading the (according to them) wrong things. Banning technologies like VPNs.