• DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      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?

      • jwt@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        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.

        • iii@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          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”

          • jwt@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            (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.

            • iii@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              48 minutes ago

              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?

              • jwt@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                35 minutes ago

                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.

                • iii@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  26 minutes ago

                  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.

    • iii@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      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.