# Habilidade de bloquear o acesso ao Discourse de regiões geográficas ou países **URL:** \ **Category:** Feature\ **Created:** [15 Abril , 2019 14:37 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/ability-to-block-discourse-access-from-geographic-regions-or-countries/115112 "2019-04-15T14:37:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 11
**Author:** ![merefield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/merefield/32/176214_2.png) [@merefield](https://meta.discourse.org/u/merefield)\ **Post date:** [16 Abril , 2019 06:51 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/ability-to-block-discourse-access-from-geographic-regions-or-countries/115112/11 "2019-04-16T06:51:50Z")
> [@geek](#): > > Link tax - Linking and excerpting to a site and including anything over a couple of words is not allowed. Unless I’m mistaken, this applies to all sites, not just large ones. Don’t believe this is correct. First, it’s not a tax, so let’s drop the fear-mongering ‘spin’. The data in the open graph tags is much more than a couple of words. Given its purpose, despite not being a lawyer (@angus), my hunch is that there exists an implicit licence to use this data as previewing remotely is exactly what it’s meant for. If they didn’t want you to use this text, why include it in their open graph tags? We might need this tested in court to confirm, though why someone would bring a case against you for linking to their site using their link data is anyone’s guess! I suspect therefore oneboxing will continue to not require an explicit licence. I will certainly continue to do so without any fear of repercussions. I appreciate quoting from arbitrary points in the main text is going to be a bit more tricky. --- _[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/ability-to-block-discourse-access-from-geographic-regions-or-countries/115112)._