15155

Fusing multiple boolean logic functions into one.

Good luck with this theory. The site in question's domain was seized, they now have to fight to get it back.

I don't think there's a vacuum so much as a wealth of "I don't like what's happening!"

Verisign does business in Texas, right? Are they just allowed to do that with no restrictions? Texas can't say "no, you may not sell services to Texans?"

Do people care this much about this specific porn site that they are willing to upend global infrastructure? Principles don't make precedent, it takes money and actual interest to do that.

The latent ability of the United States to shut off some specific domain within a TLD is never going to cause people at large to say "We'll make our own .com with blackjack and hookers!"

In this hypothetical new system, other DNS roots would exist - and for practicality's sake, wouldn't collide with the "old Internet." Nobody is reissuing .coms, they will pick some new TLD or system entirely.. this today is known as a "ccTLD." Are people interested enough in true sovereignty beyond what ccTLDs offer? What does that even look like?

Why do most businesses enjoying .com domains today want to move to your system of control? Nothing can be truly "decentralized" any more than the DNS of today is: countries effectively opt in one way or another - the internet is a cooperative system, much like international diplomacy.

Has there been a single attempt at pressing this issue judicially, or is this just hypothetical? Common law legal systems are not based on "neener neener, gotcha!" technicalities, and are not computer systems.

Did those abortion clinic workers perform an abortion in Texas? Then yes, they can.

This website was providing services to the people of Texas, and Verisign provides services to the people of Texas as well.

Further, it seems to be presented in such a way to justify actions taken by one aggressive party in a legal dispute as inevitable

You're free to fight back and contest it and be the Erin Brockovich you've always wanted to be - that is freedom. But the rest of us in reality understand how diplomacy, politics, and economic activity works.

Interest (and by proxy, money) succeeds. People at large (not just neurodivergent, computer-employed, left-leaning folks) aren't all that interested in protecting your friendly neighborhood porn site (even if they frequent it or would be upset if it shut down), so these businesses lose.

It's afternoon in Europe, and folks generally don't like to be reminded of the fact that their market is decreasing in global relevance.

In this case, ads are even a product people actively want to avoid, but it's still unsettling to be undesirable. Imagine banning smoking and then getting upset that Philip Morris doesn't want to sell to you anymore.

What power does the Ugandan or Thai government have to enforce their laws? That's really what matters - might makes right.

Does Verisign lose anything of value by being forced to stop doing business in those countries?

Texas has the power of being a member state of the United States. The Constitution grants Texas the ability to enforce its judgments throughout the lands and upon its own businesses.

Was anyone who broke the law in texas?

Irrelevant. Texas has jurisdiction over anyone doing business in Texas, and may enforce all judgments, writs, and other decrees using third-parties who also do business in Texas (Verisign decidedly does) and typically throughout the United States.

The law isn't an autistic computer system; this isn't about "fairness." This is about "what can be enforced." This controversy is more of a political and diplomatic issue than a legal issue.

So as I said, the matter gets escalated to a federal court.

If it's challenged. Has that happened here? SCOTUS has already declined to get involved - implicitly ratifying Texas's statutes.

Their jurisdictions do not extent beyond their borders.

If you break a law in Texas and flee to California, California will extradite you. The internet is the unique element here, because it's globally accessible. Our laws still exist regardless of technology.

What happens if Texas says: "Verisign: you can't do business within our borders?" They'd surely be within their rights to do that. What else can Verisign practically do but comply?

If this was true in factual implementation, then Washington state's assault weapon ban would apply nationwide, which it decidedly does not.

And when Viramontes v. Cook County is decided within the next year, it won't apply in Washington either.

Today, FFLs from other states won't ship these arms into Washington - how is that not "apply[ing] nationwide?" FFLs in Idaho will not sell you an AR-15 with a Washington license despite it being legal to do so federally.

Or the court decision obligating the city and state of New York to issue concealed pistol permits to people who go through a process (even for non residents) would apply in Washington DC or Chicago, which it also does not.

This is an active area of debate, and a very poor analogue to use - firearms are a Constitutionally-protected and unique area (as is free speech, but SCOTUS has already effectively found in favor of Texas in this case.)

Why does my marriage license or driver's license apply nationwide but not my CCL? Why do I even need a CCL - there's zero historic precedent for it (Bruen)?

Do you actually think that an elected state attorney general in Washington or California or New York would shut down a hosting company

I think that if there were any disagreement between the States, it would go to the Supreme Court for an ultimate decision. This is not the default. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States:

Article III

Section I

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section II

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Absent a controversy - i.e. a willingness to object: full faith and credit applies.

obviously your theory doesn't hold

Cost is my "theory." A larger market can sustain larger ad spend, and in some areas it's cheaper to make larger ad buys. Both are true.

Also, "larger market" obviously implies a category-specific qualifier. People in the United States might have more of an appetite for televisions than people without running water - news at 11.

Spoiler: LG TVs sold in China also seem to have more ads than the LG TV we end up buying in Europe.

"Spoiler:" is an unnecessarily cunty way to lead a declaration of fact with zero objective accompanying evidence. Any citation you care to provide?

"More ads" is already a pretty subjective, ill-defined thing. More screen time? More individual advertisers? More unique advertisements? Larger screen area?

Why would it be like that?

Ads aren't free - this isn't a "theory," it's basic economics. Cost can be political (you cause the entire EU government to outlaw the practice) or monetary.

If that theory is true, does that mean TVs sold in the European Union then have more ads than TVs sold in China

Probably? The markets have little overlap, but again, this is a function of cost. Where people have more money to spend, I have more money to spend on ads, or more money to spend on campaigning to be allowed to show ads.

coming from a position of regulatory strength

Power is defined by the ability to force people to do things they don't want to do - not things that they might have done anyway eventually or that they can feasibly see might benefit them.

In this specific case, the EU gave Apple a golden bridge to retreat over by deprecating the 30-pin cable. If Apple did it themselves, people would have been pissed that they had to buy yet another charger. "Europe is the bad guy, not Apple."

How do you do that?

By choosing to spend your money elsewhere.

And which companies does not have these today?

- JetBlue, Frontier Airlines, Spirit Airlines, Volaris, Breeze Airways

- easyJet, Wizz Air, Vueling, ITA Airways, IndiGo, AirAsia, Cebu Pacific, Air Arabia

- Middle East Airlines, Tunisair, flynas

All of the above have no Boeing aircraft in their fleet at all.

Emirates doesn't fly the 737, but does fly Boeing aircraft.

Americans are receiving more ads than in other parts of the world

Ads aren't free, so yes, it would stand to reason that people in the largest consumer market in the world might garner more ad spend.

Think about what a bad precedent that would be. Some countries criminalize promotion of pro-LGBT+ content. What if those countries suddenly demand extradition of people who run pro-LGBT+ blogs because the web sites are available there?

Simple: a local court having jurisdiction over those individuals would utilize their own laws and discretion to decide if they are required to extradite these people.

If a country chooses not to comply, political consequences may ensue - this is basic international diplomacy. Russia doesn't seem to care about demands to extradite Snowden: they don't have to, they have the resources and political will to ignore these demands. Someday, perhaps to curry favor, they might comply.

Smaller, weaker countries don't have the luxury of noncompliance, nor do they have the same ability to have their various legal proceedings enforced extraterritorially.

Might makes right.

Are those states somehow exempt from the United States Constitution's requirement to uphold "judicial Proceedings of every other State?"

International internet traffic from an entity whose servers aren't in Texas isn't subject to Texas jurisdiction.

Besides the United States Constitution entirely invalidating this argument:

Does Verisign sell and/or provide services to Texans?

Second, a state court does not have jurisdiction beyond its borders for entities not operating within same.

Where did you come by this information?

Article IV, Section I

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

Article IV, Section I

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

How is South Africa doing today by comparison, in your opinion?

Would you rather live in Johannesburg or Dallas?

travel to Texas without risk of arrest

This isn't some "non-extradition country without a treaty" scenario - "neener neener, if I don't step foot in your area you can't touch me." The United States does still have a functioning Constitution.

If Texas wants to arrest an employee of these organizations, they can simply issue a Texan arrest warrant and other States will be compelled to enforce it.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

Pretty clear to me.

See Article IV, Section I of the Constitution of the United States of America. What a pesky document!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/full_faith_and_credit

Welcome to the world: people own things, have power, and use violence to protect their interests.

Stomping your feet on the ground because something's not perceived as fair doesn't really change things.

China has its own internet with limited access to the global "internet," other countries are free to do the same.

When you create the infrastructure, you make the rules. If a party doesn't like those rules, they are free to create their own replacement infrastructure and obtain global buy-in.

ccTLDs already exist and their respective countries have sovereignty over those TLDs: the UK can disappear any .uk domain name it wants from the global internet.

The .com TLD is American, and is therefore subject to American legal proceedings.