Post #2389910

2026-05-03 17:21 UTC

Why is a company or person that doesn’t exist physically in Utah at all responsible for adhering to Utah’s laws? Should be their government’s responsibility to block sites, not the site’s responsibility to block Utah.

Replies (2)

@FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2026-05-03 18:34

Jurisdiction follows impact, not geography. If a service ‘does business with’ Utah residents then Utah has legal standing to regulate that interaction.

Open ##2389909
@NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 2026-05-03 19:19

> Why is a company or person that doesn’t exist physically in Utah at all responsible for adhering to Utah’s laws? This line of thinking is dangerous as it allows companies to disregard any sane legislation as long as their servers are located in a "safe" place. A large portion of websites accessible from Canada are served from US servers, for example. American companies ignoring Canadian laws because they don't have Canadian-based servers would be a nightmare If a company makes any money off users in a geographic area (which includes ad view revenue), they have to follow the rules there which is a GOOD thing - even if it's ridiculous in this case Also endorsing governments selectively blocking websites is just bad for obvious reasons

Open ##2526284