… Long farting noise
Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 1 week ago
I'm not sure what the big deal is here. They're dealing with a known rise in crime and fraud. this isn't just a bogeyman "save the children" thing, it's that they want to have access to the platform to keep things safe for their people and everyone else.
I think it's more than reasonable to have a specific point of contact if there's any issues related to a criminal investigation. And the lack of response from the Big Two is evidence that they don't care.
frozenpopsicle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
Assocks. They don’t need (backend-level) access to the platform in order to fight that. They just have to do good, boots-on-the-ground detective work. In other words, earn their salaries. We don’t precime-inalize silverware companies because people may use kitchen knives to kill each other.
Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 1 week ago
No, but if one brand of knife is used in the majority of a category of crimes, it's fair that the government should have a clear point of contact with the manufacturer to help identify why it's happening and how it can be prevented.
Realize this: The Nepalese government is being treated the same way as a "normal" person - they're having trouble prosecuting these crimes because they're not being given any access to hidden or deleted posts. They're having to go though the useless fake support chats and the like. What they're demanding, mostly, is that they have a known human being who will cooperate with the government and to whom they have a clear and unambiguous connection. Frankly speaking, I think that ought to be a bare-minimum for any company anywhere. I don't support corporate sovereignty or corporate personhood. If you have a company operating in a nation, that nation should always have a clear point of contact for law enforcement & taxation purposes, as well as more general communication when needed.
veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
Yeah but all that crap you mention is for corporations, for agencies that extract value from a country thus the country wants to see some compensation for it. To my knowledge, I don’t need no stinkin’ legal office representation in a country if all I want is to exchange messages with someone there. That’s what eg.: snail mail services are for. Otherwise it would literally kill the economical feasibility of any such kind of service (yeah, I know, that’s the point).
Cooperate, or “cooperate”? Important distinction, in particular for small platforms.
See, half the entire point of the Fediverse is that it’s not a company - heck, it’s not even many companies! This is all about people using “snail mail BUT ON THE INTERNET” to speak to each other.
Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 3 days ago
You as a person don't need direct representation, usually (though having a lawyer ready us always a benefit). The only way to stop the social media companies from extracting value and facilitating harmful criminal behavior is to stop their actions completely. Yes, that affects people. Yes, that means people won't be able to use an online service. But if all social media went away tomorrow, the only one I'd actually miss would be YouTube.
Fediverse instances have a different structure, and what should happen is that the owner of each instance that wants to operate in Nepal should register with the government, and only federate with those who are also registered. Otherwise, you've lost out on a country that barely us a blip on the Internet radar, with the exception of rich, entitled, jerks ruining Everest and adding to the colossal body count.
No matter what, it's not worth dying for. Protesting in favor of big companies is dumb from the start. Protesting in