87
How will Australia's ban on youth access to social media affect instances hosted in Australia? (lemmy.ca)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/fediverse@lemmy.world
57 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Do they have any rule that says you need a minimum number of users on a site to fall under the law?

If servers of someinstance.co.au fine if they move to hosting in Finland?

It just feels like a nightmare.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Australia blocking 4chan in Australia doesn't compel 4chan to do anything.

Why do you think American companies, even ones with no legal presence in Europe, still went along with GDPR? Same principle applies here.

They didn't want to lose custom in Europe.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    They didn't want to lose custom in Europe.

    Yeah sure that's why major news sites "complied" with GDPR by blocking European visitors...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Some didn't mind the loss of service in Europe and just cut Europe off. Some did. Bottom line is that the EU wouldn't have been able to sue them because they had no assets in Europe.

    What is it you imagine Australia could do to 4chan, other than blocking 4chan in Australia?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    My point is that the threat of legal action was enough that major sites decided not to risk it, and blocked Europe et al.

    4chan is hardly a financial/corporate entity (though they do seem to profit off traffic with ads), therefore much harder to go against, but blocking the service is still effective. It will be up to 4chan to see if they want to comply with the law and get unblocked or if they can live without Australian traffic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago*

    My point is that the threat of legal action was enough that major sites decided not to risk it, and blocked Europe et al.

    And has 4chan done the same to UK after Ofcom sent them any messages? No, they haven't. There's no meaningful difference between being blocked by a country and blocking them yourself. If we eventually block 4chan, then we do that - but no way would the current US administration accept any attempted fines against them.

    4chan is hardly a financial/corporate entity (though they do seem to profit off traffic with ads), therefore much harder to go against, but blocking the service is still effective. It will be up to 4chan to see if they want to comply with the law and get unblocked or if they can live without Australian traffic.

    Right, but that's all I mean. They can't do anything to 4chan otherwise.

    (And this law, comically enough - doesn't really apply to them in the first place because they don't have account signups).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent