The relevant part is the legislation of the instance hosting location and the degree of anonymity of the instance owner and his attitude.
Hetzner is the very opposite of bulletproof hosting, the owner of lemmy.world is fully public and his attitude to potentially problematic content is on public record.
Unless the hosting location is in the principality of SEALAND, and even if it is in SEALAND I think you’re going to be surprised about jurisdiction. Edward Snowden revealed a while back that all traffic crossing us borders is monitored. If the site is in the US, the server is within their jurisdiction and can easily be seized. If the site is outside of the US, traffic to that site is monitored from traffic originating from inside the US.
The internet is global. Local jurisdiction for copyright infringement isn’t something I would hang my hat on. With greatly paid lawyers comes lots of power.
the degree of anonymity
read: the ability of the instance owner to shield themselves from legal trouble by trying to outrun it. (not a sustainable practice).
his attitude
read: the preferences of the instance owner to sheild themselves from legal trouble.
bulletproof hosting
read: the ability for users to post content that might get the instance owner in trouble with the expectation that it will not get the instance owner in trouble because it is legally-sound or otherwise outside of any jurisdiction of US law.
the owner of lemmy.world is fully public
read: the instance owner complies with the law.
his attitude to potentially problematic content is on public record
read: the instance owner’s preference for the instance owner to sheild themselves from legal trouble have been mentioned online. uh huh…
I don’t seem to be able to make myself understood. Once again: monitoring of (encrypted) connections is irrelevant. Or just getting the data from your own federating instance.
Consider an anonymously paid bulletproof hosted lemmy instance. The admin is unknown, the hosters are not responsive to takedown requests, jurisdiction is neutral or welcoming. I can think of multiple such controversial instances that have survived for decades. It’s the gold standard, but silver or even bronze is far better than a jumpy self-censoring guy hosting stuff at a severely problem-averse hoster like Hetzner.
If end users want to add protection layers to that it is their own prerogative and out of scope. EOT.
No I understand you quite clearly. You want to make the instance owner liable for your content. I am saying the instance owner does not want to be legally liable for your content. Do you seee how the world does not revolve around your wishes and desires? How much are y’all paying this instance owner to make it worth their while for taking on all this risk, zero monies? Yeah that won’t work, and the community is likely to be banned or defederated. Oh look, like it did.
I am just explaining the reality. You are explaining your desires.
Example: Some pedophiles started posting CSAM to lemmyshitpost, and now lemmyshitpost is down. Do you understand me yet?
The relevant part is the legislation of the instance hosting location and the degree of anonymity of the instance owner and his attitude.
Hetzner is the very opposite of bulletproof hosting, the owner of lemmy.world is fully public and his attitude to potentially problematic content is on public record.
Unless the hosting location is in the principality of SEALAND, and even if it is in SEALAND I think you’re going to be surprised about jurisdiction. Edward Snowden revealed a while back that all traffic crossing us borders is monitored. If the site is in the US, the server is within their jurisdiction and can easily be seized. If the site is outside of the US, traffic to that site is monitored from traffic originating from inside the US.
What if the content is hosted overseas? Doesn’t matter, still sued
The internet is global. Local jurisdiction for copyright infringement isn’t something I would hang my hat on. With greatly paid lawyers comes lots of power.
read: the ability of the instance owner to shield themselves from legal trouble by trying to outrun it. (not a sustainable practice).
read: the preferences of the instance owner to sheild themselves from legal trouble.
read: the ability for users to post content that might get the instance owner in trouble with the expectation that it will not get the instance owner in trouble because it is legally-sound or otherwise outside of any jurisdiction of US law.
read: the instance owner complies with the law.
read: the instance owner’s preference for the instance owner to sheild themselves from legal trouble have been mentioned online. uh huh…
I don’t seem to be able to make myself understood. Once again: monitoring of (encrypted) connections is irrelevant. Or just getting the data from your own federating instance.
Consider an anonymously paid bulletproof hosted lemmy instance. The admin is unknown, the hosters are not responsive to takedown requests, jurisdiction is neutral or welcoming. I can think of multiple such controversial instances that have survived for decades. It’s the gold standard, but silver or even bronze is far better than a jumpy self-censoring guy hosting stuff at a severely problem-averse hoster like Hetzner.
If end users want to add protection layers to that it is their own prerogative and out of scope. EOT.
No I understand you quite clearly. You want to make the instance owner liable for your content. I am saying the instance owner does not want to be legally liable for your content. Do you seee how the world does not revolve around your wishes and desires? How much are y’all paying this instance owner to make it worth their while for taking on all this risk, zero monies? Yeah that won’t work, and the community is likely to be banned or defederated. Oh look, like it did.
I am just explaining the reality. You are explaining your desires.
Example: Some pedophiles started posting CSAM to lemmyshitpost, and now lemmyshitpost is down. Do you understand me yet?