I don’t believe “location you currently are” is a protected class.
Comment on Wikimedia Foundation calls on US Supreme Court to strike laws that threaten Wikipedia
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 11 months agoYou can’t just put illegal discrimination in your EULA and expect it to be legally binding for the user. Also, you don’t even have to sign a EULA to use Wikipedia. It’s an open dictionary, not a proprietary app from a for-profit company.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 11 months ago
True, but I’m pretty sure collective punishment is illegal or at least frowned upon in most countries…
Regardless of legality, it would go against the whole mission statement of being the world’s largest freely available encyclopedia to just start geoblocking everyone from states with ridiculous laws…
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
This isn’t “punishment” in the eyes of the law. There’s really nothing preventing a site from banning an entire state, it’s happened before, it’ll happen again the way these laws are going.
But yeah, in the specific case of Wikipedia I doubt they’ll do it unless things get pushed to the absolutely limit of what they can handle.
KmlSlmk64@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Why can’t you restrict usage if you don’t comply with local laws? Why can companies like Facebook restrict usage of their new features like Threads in the EU then? Or some US news network restricting access from the EU?
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 11 months ago
They can’t. The EU is constantly fining them and suing them for not complying with EU law.
The EU law says that they can’t force cookies on EU residents. It doesn’t say that they can’t accomplish that by geoblocking.
As for Wikipedia, maybe they’re legally allowed to block all of Texas and Florida, maybe they’re not.
Regardless, such a move would be the opposite of the mission and function of Wikipedia: to be a free source for unbiased information available to everyone.