I'd wish there were movement for the privacy-conscious services to escape any regulation, not just choose the currently-politically-correct one. Like piracy sites did in 00-10s (abuse-proof hosting in Ecuador, shady domain registrar from SEA, zero search indexing) or crypto companies now (net of shell companies where not a single one is responsible for anything).
My point is, if you trust the company you're using, also trust it to use any means necessary to protect you from bad actors, don't rely on the laws here. Both the corporate and the state ones. If you don't trust it, don't give it anything you cannot afford to leak or lose.
Specifically, EU data protection laws are good to protect regular customers from the big corporations, but they offer little protection against the EU (and the member states) themselves. And if the risk you're hedging against is "yourself turning to big corp and abusing customers" moving to EU is okay, but not in any other case.
> I'd wish there were movement for the privacy-conscious services to escape any regulation, not just choose the currently-politically-correct one.
Not possible. Anywhere that an entity is able to exist will also see some form of regulation. Regulation is the attempt of society to balance the benefits and harms of business such that its benefits reach as many people as possible, and its harms minimized or eliminated.
Too much regulation is just as bad as too little, and we have centuries of data demonstrating the need for a balanced approach.
As for the nod to piracy sites, what you’re suggesting is instead civil protesting of hostile regulations that harm society to benefit business interests. That’s excellent but the answer there is better regulations, not a lack of regulations.
I used those piracy websites, but there is some incredibly naivety in the thought that people trusted those.
I certainly trust governments where the rule of law applies more than I trust corporations. I certainly would not input any real data in a service hosted in Equador with a registrar in God-knows-where.
That does not mean that governments get unquestionable faith, but there's still the pretence that they protect their citizens. Corporations only seek profit.
> You don't get to opt in to the laws you like and ignore the ones you don't like.
Well, maybe you shouldn't, or maybe you should, but you definitely can if you have the technical know-how. Probably best example is ThePirateBay which people and organizations have tried to take down for more than 20 years, yet it persists.
They're quite literally still alive while still choosing what laws they want to follow.
Obviously, that you can make this choice also means you get to chose if to even expose yourself to the potential consequences of that too, as Silk Road would attest to.
All privacy-conscious services are already based in countries that have privacy-conscious laws.
And most privacy-conscious services generally protect you to a certain level by the amount of data they don't keep. Mulvad, for example, when raided kept everything they had. Because they could prove that the data that the warrant was for was not stored on their equipment. PRQ, they're quite happy to work with you without knowing who you are.
If you want to keep yourself private from law enforcement or intelligence agencies, then you shouldn't be using standard services without your own layer of encryption and privacy steps in between. You're always going to be at the behest of some government, that's just how the law works.
That might make sense from the point of view that only considers the service provider and the host.
> And if the risk you're hedging against is "yourself turning to big corp and abusing customers" moving to EU is okay, but not in any other case.
I mean, this seems like a silly concern (just don’t abuse the customers, lol). But, he can now reasonably offer to his customers the fact that he’ll be bound by EU privacy laws.
In the case of something like SourceHut which has consistently made decisions in favor of having a slow/sustainable business model instead of going for massive growth, this seems to make a lot of sense. He probably isn’t too worried about having to eventually backstab his customers, so why not make the value proposition clear?
Like what if the big plan here is to offer clear business terms backed by customer-friendly local laws and make a nice middle class salary for the rest of his life, while living in a nice friendly country?
> Like piracy sites did in 00-10s (abuse-proof hosting in Ecuador, shady domain registrar from SEA, zero search indexing) or crypto companies now (net of shell companies where not a single one is responsible for anything).
And they were only able to do so under the auspices of corrupt politicians in said country. For example, Crypto firms in UAE purchasing property in projects closely affiliated with the Emirs of the Emirate they are domiciled in [0]. And Vietnam cracking down on shady domain registrars for streaming in order to unlock trading opportunities such as not being treated as a "Non-Market Economy".
Tech will always be subordinate to the government, and any techno-libertarian ideal faces that harsh reality fairly quickly.
Sure go into some desert without them knowing and do your thing there. As soon as tou plan to interact with other people you will have to deal with the fact that societes like to create rules for themselves.
There is a word for people who like to unilaterally break social contracts for their own benefits and it has not a lot of positive connotations.
Note: that I totally get the sentiment of wanting to get away from all these complications especially in technically minded people. But the sooner we realize that this can either be lived political resistance or antisocial/sociopathic exploitation the better. Even in an ideal society individuals will have to be bound to certain rules, otherwise everybody will have to fear everybody else violating their boundaries. And different societies will find different forms of rules with different evaluations of how to do things.
TL;DR: Don't want to deal with the rules of a society? Don't interact with it. You cant have your cake and eat it too.
In recent news from the "land of the free": a Norwegian tourist was detained by ICE and denied entry at Newark Airport for having a funny picture of JD Vance on his phone.
You can claim what you want about freedom of speech being guaranteed in the USA, but the reality shows that it only applies for some people.
Edit: the flagged comment I replied to claimed that no EU country had free speech in their constitution. This is objectively wrong, and is why I wrote my comment.
Calling someone an asshole, or calling them a racist if they seem to discriminate you based on your race, saying a restaurant isn't good etc. can very easily get you sued in Germany.
They are in fact self censoring. I live there and many people are just Nazis. It's illegal to be a Nazi, but the law works on facts you can prove in court, and the only way you can prove that is if they, for example, yelled Heil Hitler, or did the salute, or waved a swastika flag. As long as they're not too obvious about it, it's de facto allowed. Some people are still stupid enough to do the obvious signs of course.
> "Multiple EU countries have free speech written in their constituion."
That's an exceedingly low bar! We need more critical thinking than that to start a substantive discussion about comparative freedoms across political systems. A government can't just declare itself to be a free country; it's practical reality which matters.
Exhibits A, B, & C:
> "Citizens of the People's Republic of China shall enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration"
> "In conformity with the interests of the toilers, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:—(a) Freedom of speech; (b) Freedom of the Press; (c) Freedom of assembly and of holding mass meetings; (d) Freedom of street processions and demonstrations..."
> "Citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and association. The State shall guarantee the conditions for the free activities of democratic political parties and social organizations."
You have to assume the country in question follows has a Rule of Law. You're argument also works against the US as of recently, less so against Germany.
My point is, if you trust the company you're using, also trust it to use any means necessary to protect you from bad actors, don't rely on the laws here. Both the corporate and the state ones. If you don't trust it, don't give it anything you cannot afford to leak or lose.
Specifically, EU data protection laws are good to protect regular customers from the big corporations, but they offer little protection against the EU (and the member states) themselves. And if the risk you're hedging against is "yourself turning to big corp and abusing customers" moving to EU is okay, but not in any other case.