←back to thread

295 points AndrewDucker | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
tick_tock_tick ◴[] No.45044989[source]
How is this vaguely sufficient to meet the legal requirements of the law? They know geo-blocking is insufficient.
replies(5): >>45045138 #>>45045153 #>>45045567 #>>45045920 #>>45048438 #
d4mi3n ◴[] No.45045138[source]
IANAL, but there’s a question of reasonable burden. Not sure if that applies here, but it’s not unreasonable to say you simply don’t want to do business in a state where the regulations are cost prohibitive. Given they make a reasonable effort to not provide a service to MI, it’s not really on them to police people trying to circumvent a state’s local laws.

Pornhub and BlueSky have done similar in response to this legislation in Texas. Wikipedia and a few other sites blocked the UK to avoid being burdened by their Safety act. Pretty much every streaming platform implements regional geo blocking for licensing reasons.

I’ll be curious to see how things shake out in the long run given the current political climate.

replies(2): >>45045347 #>>45045455 #
1. Timwi ◴[] No.45045455[source]
For the record, Wikipedia has not (yet) blocked the UK. They are awaiting official classification by Ofcom of the Wikipedia website. However, the uncertainty is definitely vexing, and the direction this is going is truly worrying.
replies(1): >>45046193 #
2. d4mi3n ◴[] No.45046193[source]
Good callout! Sadly, I’m unable to update my comment to correct. This whole area of law seems to be busy lately.