How will Australia's ban on youth access to social media affect instances hosted in Australia? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 1 month ago by n7gifmdn@lemmy.ca to c/fediverse@lemmy.world

36 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

[-] Skavau@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago

So how is Australia going to make other sites with no footprint in Australia do it then?

[-] fonix232@fedia.io -1 points 1 month ago

National level site blocking, suspension on any future operations, international courts... Corporations are much easier to persecute over borders than private persons.

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

[-] mtpender@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago

National level site blocking, suspension on any future operations, international courts

Easily circumvented by changing your DNS settings or using TOR or other VPN services

[-] fonix232@fedia.io -1 points 1 month ago

Not when the specific IP addresses of services are blocked on IPS level - which would be mandated by the state.

VPN/Tor, sure, but at that point the service itself can't confirm where the visitor is from, therefore Australian laws wouldn't apply.

[-] mtpender@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago

The second half of your comment is redundant. Not knowing where the user is from is THE WHOLE POINT of TOR and VPNs in general. It just proves that this whole internet censorship thing is doomed to fail. It just forces people to find a work-around that the government doesn't control.

But hey, if the government wants to waste time and money pissing into the wind they can go for it, let's see where that gets them.

[-] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] fonix232@fedia.io 0 points 1 month ago

They didn't want to lose custom in Europe.

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

[-] Skavau@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago

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?