I'm surprised you're so keen on having big tech companies intentionally ignore court orders and just break the law. Like, it's obviously something none of us should want.
There's a really bad equilibrium where every country (or at least every country big enough to have BigTech workers in their country) figures out they can globally censor the internet by using the assets and people of those companies as leverage. Then we would have Americans having their internet censored by every foreign power except China and Russia, where BigTech have largely left.
And it would all be done under the color of local law.
It's not required that they do so in order to implement a France only block. They just geolocate the requesting IP, and give different answers based on that. Same as Netflix or any other provider geo blocking there content, with the same workarounds.
But also, in answer to your question, sort of, yes. 1.1.1.1 is any cast so that users will be routed to a server geographically near them. So then 1.1.1.1 a user gets in the US is quite literally a different one than a user in France will get.
The venn diagram of people who are technically savvy enough to be able to alter their dns records and people who can and will use a VPN to work around an ip geolocation block is almost a single circle.
There is actually no evidence this is the case, and there is evidence it is the opposite - that the less voters support something, the more likely it is to pass.
Obviously the claim exists within the space of bills that somebody actually wants. The premise is that things major industries or politically connected plutocrats want get passed over the interests of the general public for all of the usual reasons, not that things nobody wants get passed without explanation.
The voters decide who is part of the "ruling class". If the voters choose representatives who only pass laws which benefit themselves, then that is a choice the voters made. If the voters are unsatisfied with their choice, they can change their mind in the next vote.
(Read: The status quo is the status quo because most people are prefer the status quo.)
Elon Musk never passed a law. The representatives chosen by the voters did. These representatives do not magically enter the government; they are selected by the voters. The voters freely decide wether they wish to have representatives who pass laws which are benefitial to Elon Musk.
> The voters freely decide wether they wish to have representatives who pass laws which are benefitial to Elon Musk.
No, the voters at best select a bundle of stances for/against various things. Effectively this means you have no input except for maybe one or two issues you care most about. In practice you do not even get to do that as your representatives are not bound to what they promised to get you to elect them.
You are free to run as a candidate, even if you are not a well-connected person. (But of course, the voters will choose to not vote for you.)
> Effectively this means you have no input except for maybe one or two issues you care most about.
You are free to vote for someone who fully represents your opinions (yourself). But noone else will vote for that person. Democracy is about making compromises; the government is an average of people's opinions.
> In practice you do not even get to do that as your representatives are not bound to what they promised to get you to elect them.
This is true. But if a candidate lies to you, you can vote for a different candidate in the next election. Repeatedly reelecting liars is a choice voters make voluntarily.
The reason for bad laws is not that democracy doesn't work. The reason is that democracy does work, and other people keep having the wrong opinions ;)
By what means? Picking one of various parties that all colluded on the laws? Perhaps one that promises to oppose it but then does the opposite? Let's not pretend that voting of all things is an effective means to enact change on specific issues in a representative democracy.
One answers is that this case isn't actually a bad law. This appears to be blatant organized piracy. What's odious about copyright laws? This also appears to be pretty much the gold standard of due process. It's not like somebody submitting automated DMCA requests on videos with silent audio tracks or something. It's a court order for these specific domains, which would have been carefully curated and has been quite literally litigated.
The other answer is that you really don't want big corporations to be ignoring laws they don't like, because odds are pretty good that your list of bad laws doesn't match theirs. Countries have sovereignty. If a company doesn't want to obey those laws, they should not operate in that country. If the law really were bad, the way you'd actually fix this is by the democratic process. That's up to the voters, not foreign corporations.
> One answers is that this case isn't actually a bad law.
It's censoring DNS. That's a bad precedent. The technical capacity to do it shouldn't exist because otherwise it will be used for every other form of censorship, and deprive democratic countries of any moral or technical authority to object when authoritarian countries want to do it.
It will also be ineffective, leading for calls to make it effective, but the only way to do that is totalitarianism. There is no good that comes from setting out on that road.
> The other answer is that you really don't want big corporations to be ignoring laws they don't like, because odds are pretty good that your list of bad laws doesn't match theirs.
Ignoring the law doesn't get them out of paying the penalty, but penalties are meant to be sane, not some Hollywood accounting nonsense where one person watching one illicit stream of a sporting event causes the event organizers six billion dollars in damages. Then if Cloudflare wants to say "yeah, we're not doing that" and just pay the $100,000 dollar fine, it's clear that they're standing on principle -- they're paying $100,000 in exchange for ostensibly nothing -- and there is nothing wrong with that. The purpose of the penalty is to deter the underlying wrongdoing, not to deter civil disobedience. Anyone should be able to say "I am going to suffer the consequences of this because my principles are worth more than the fine" without having some authoritarians ratchet up the penalty to infinity.
> Countries have sovereignty.
Democratic countries have checks and balances. One of the checks and balances is that if you pass a law people don't respect, they don't respect it. Then you have to choose between punishing not the evildoers, but the principled idealists -- or repealing the law.
France uses a sane legal system based on civil law, so precedents rarely matter. In this case the Sports Code says that piracy is bad and operators can be requested to block piracy websites if they're used and "harm" rights holders. That doesn't mean that tomorrow in a random case not related to sports piracy a judge can refer to that law and order censoring of other DNS entries.
Precedents aren't just in courts. People see something being done and then they want to do it too. If the law requires this then people who want to build systems that make it impossible would be in violation, which deters those systems from being built for the people who really need them.
Making a petition to change the laws sounds like a great way of achieving nothing. It will certainly not mean you get to ignore the court orders.
Shutting down public DNS in France would be an option (a garbage option that nobody would actually choose in this case and that'd solve nothing, but an option nonetheless). That's not what dmitrygr was asking for though. They want big tech companies to ignore legitimate court orders to protect some scummy football pirate sites.
Is a non-French company obligated to obey a French court order? I can probably name a few countries where most US companies won't enforce the court order from them
They have paying customers in France/they operate their business in France for a profit. Just because their headquarters aren’t there doesn’t make it a non-French related business.
