We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – Meta challenges UK Ofcom’s speech taxes The simple fact is that the Ofcom Fees Duties are expressed to be binding, they are a functional burden on American speech, and they are imposed for the purpose of funding an official censor.
The Ofcom Fees Duties are a British censorship tax on American speech, no matter what language Ofcom chooses to dress it up in. In the United States, those are unconstitutional. See Grosjean v. American Press Co. or Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue.
– Preston Byrne
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
William Gladstone once attended a lecture at the Royal Society…
The conversation afterwards went like this…
“Well, Mr Faraday, that was quite remarkable but what use is this ‘electricity’?”
“Sir, I beleive one day you will be able to tax it”
And that is why Michael Faraday wound up on the twenty quid note.
He also has an SI unit named for him. The farad, the unit of capacitance.
If the cost of doing business in Britain is 10% of global REVENUE (not profit, revenue), that it is simply too expensive to do business in Britain.
The idea that some petty little quango in a tiny market can impose these sorts of fines is just outrageous. If Namibia tried to fine Facebook 10% of global revenue we’d barely even notice what with it being so irrelevant, we’d laugh in their face. I’m not sure Britain is too much higher on the scale of relevance than Namibia.
Were I these large American companies I’d first pull all resources out of Britain, and possibly refuse to take business from British companies requiring them to go through an American intermediary. Then see if that is enough to keep these little petty bureaucrats out of their hair by arguing that they have no jurisdictional nexus. If that wasn’t enough, I’d just block all British IP addresses. It just isn’t worth the fines that Ofcom might claim to impose. Of course if Europe starts that sort of thing it is a more expensive prospect for American companies, but Britain is, relative to that 10% fine, a tiny market.
It is worth pointing out that this doesn’t just mean Facebook, Google etc., it also would include all AI companies that are surely just as subject to these types of regulations against hate speech. I imagine some native infrastructure would develop in Britain, much as North Korea has an “internet”. It is just one more nail in the all ready firmly nailed shut, British coffin. But Britain needs to pay for these utter offenses against people’s freedoms. Bad enough they are imposing this nonsense on British people, but the audacity of these people thinking they have global reach? Both pathetic and evil at the same time. And Britons need to object enough to shut down these laws. Perhaps a bit of pain and poverty will help them do so.
Wait…they make you pay to be humiliated?
NickM – yes indeed Sir.
Fraser Orr – YES the logical thing for companies based outside the United Kingdom to do would be to ignore these bizarre taxes and regulations (edicts).
The United Kingdom government has neither the military force or the economic influence to enforce any of this outside its borders.
Yes the United Kingdom could build a North Korean or Chinese style barrier against the internet – but (as the British establishment is so fond of telling us here in Britain) the United Kingdom is a “service economy” not one that is based on manufacturing or natural resources – so a “great anti internet barrier” is not a viable option for the United Kingdom.
Some overseas companies are already ignoring “Ofcom” – indeed sending mocking replies to its threatening messages, much like the mocking replies to the threats of the Metropolitan (London) Police Commissioner – when he started to make threats against Americans (in the United States) for expressing opinions that are illegal in the United Kingdom.
Just do not have assets in the United Kingdom, and never visit the United Kingdom (not even to change flights) and you will be fine.
For many years “Progressives” in the United Kingdom have cheered on the decline of British power – the end of what they call “Imperialism” and “Colonialism” – but they have not grasped that this decline makes British taxes, fines, and regulations (dressed up as “International Law” or whatever) utterly irrelevant to people based outside – for example in the United States.
The real danger lies in our batches of progressive dishonest judges in the US.
Generally, a judgment issued in the UK MAY be enforced in the US, if you bring it to a US court and satisfy a few requirements.
BUT if that judgment in the UK was issued pursuant to legal theories that are repugnant to the US Constitution, it won’t be enforceable.
So, an OFCOM judgment that arises from an enforcement of governmental speech abridgements will not be enforceable in the US.
Unless, of course, you draw a judge who either doesn’t know our Constitution, or doesn’t care for it. Then, you might find a “ridiculous” UK court order fining you $1B to suddenly be entered and enforceable here.
Certainly, an appeal will be in order, and will succeed. But it will be costly, especially if they grab assets here before you get your appeal and a halting order entered.
So, it’s not riskless. You will likely eventually prevail. But it will be costly. Once again, the process will be the punishment.
That’s the blackmail the UK system holds over Meta.
@bobby b
So, it’s not riskless. You will likely eventually prevail. But it will be costly. Once again, the process will be the punishment.
Which is why it is better for these companies to completely withdraw from the UK market. It is tiny, the cost of handling the litigation would most likely be more than they can make.
Plus Britain really needs to suffer some pain from this horrific behavior. Take away Snap and Insta from all your teenage girls and you will suffer a LOT of pain.
How do you do that when it’s the internet? Mostly, I don’t think I can set up a website and say “don’t show this in Costa Rica.” I think it’s just . . . out there.
So it becomes the responsibility (in my mind) for the banning country to filter it out. If the UK hates X, then the UK should find a way to block it.
But that’s hard to do, which is why they think blackmail is the way to go. I suspect that actively blocking sites inside the UK would be too much of a dictator-face for their own citizens to accept.
Which is their problem. Go, Elon! Go, Meta!
@bobbyb you can absolutely do that by blocking ip addresses from certain countries. It is done all the time. It is why what you can see on Netflix is different from what someone in Germany or Japan sees.
It can be done by either the web site itself or at the national boundary by the country the browser is in.
bobby b – good point about the danger of Progressive (Collectivist) judges in the United States – filled with “International Law” and “Social Justice” doctrines.
However, as you point out, the people being targeted have the financial resources to appeal up to the Supreme Court – and set binding precedents.
Unlike the poor Massachusetts man who wrote an abusive (but NOT threatening) e.mail to leftist politicians (denouncing him for supporting the “Trans” cult against children) in Michigan and was, in effect, kidnapped from Massachusetts (with the consent of the local system) and has been in prison in Michigan for two years waiting for his trial.
Michigan law says that someone should not be held that long waiting for trial – but the judges (and so on) are “Progressive” (i.e. they only care about a defendant if the defendant ticks certain demographic boxes). And the laws against sending abusive e.mails are unconstitutional anyway – but the man lacked the financial resources to defend himself (for most of his time he had to rely on “Public Defenders” of the Soviet sort – “as a Soviet person I am horrified by having to defend this Reactionary” or words to that effect).
He has lost his job and his home – and even if he is found not guilty, he will end up on the street (after two years or more of being abused in prison).
“The process is the punishment” – the message that goes out is clear, be very polite to “Progressive” politicians, only conservative politicians can have nasty things said about them.