[HN Gopher] Ofcom fines 4chan PS20K and counting for violating U...
___________________________________________________________________
Ofcom fines 4chan PS20K and counting for violating UK's Online
Safety Act
Author : klez
Score : 152 points
Date : 2025-10-13 14:34 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| klez wrote:
| Note: I had to edit the title because it was too long for HN
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Well edited
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Good luck in trying to collect it.
| klez wrote:
| They should go looking for the Hacker Known as 4chan and
| collect from him.
| kbelder wrote:
| Yeah, who is this 'anonymous' fellow?
| jsheard wrote:
| I suspect Ofcom knows that 4chan isn't going to comply, they're
| just going through the motions before deploying the nuclear
| option of ordering ISPs to block it.
| Froztnova wrote:
| Seeing the memes about brits being kicked off the site by
| their own government might actually be worth a quick visit,
| lol.
| gossipaddress wrote:
| If the UK doesn't like 4chan, they're going to have to just block
| it. 4chan, an American product, with likely no funds, is never
| going to pay this and will suffer zero consequences.
| breakfastduck wrote:
| what a pointless excersize this is
| jerjerjer wrote:
| Do they even have any legal presence in UK to fine?
| kulahan wrote:
| I assume it's mostly symbolic and/or serving some greater legal
| purpose.
| arghwhat wrote:
| Threatening with prison or a fine of double digit millions of
| pounds doesn't seem very symbolic.
| general1465 wrote:
| I mean Russia has fined Google 20 decillion USD. What is
| the point if you can't collect? Like me fining my neighbor
| 100 million Euro. He will laugh at me and tell me to get
| lost.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxvnwkl5kgo
| arghwhat wrote:
| Are you likening the UK to Russia?
|
| This is not a fictive fine, it's threats of imprisonment,
| and ignoring the whole thing means having to avoid
| travelling to or through the UK for life, and that's
| assuming the UK doesn't try to activate any sort of
| extradition agreements.
|
| Even without going to prison, that's a permanent and
| quite significant theft of freedom of movement. If you
| ever travel abroad, you could end up accidentally booking
| a transfer through the UK.
|
| No one ends up unintentionally transferring through
| Russia anytime soon. And likening the legal threats of a
| foreign nation to a joke from your neighbor makes no
| sense.
| spookie wrote:
| I really fail to see the difference between this and
| Russia's fine.
| storus wrote:
| If your flight is redirected due to weather/etc. to some
| British commonwealth country, then you might be grabbed
| upon landing. Or if you are a really big fish, your plane
| might be forced to land on a crown-controlled land.
| jen20 wrote:
| And this is different exactly how to Belarus (backed by
| Russian power) [1]?
|
| [1]: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/belarus-forces-
| vilnius-...
| Aloisius wrote:
| The only member of the Commonwealth that is _British_
| anymore is the UK and any of the independent countries in
| the Commonwealth grabbing a passenger on behalf of a
| civil judgement in a English court seems no more likely
| than any other random country doing so.
|
| Even more unlikely is the crown exercising the kind of
| power you're talking about. Never mind that Charles isn't
| the King of the majority of Commonwealth countries.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| They didn't just threaten anything - they imposed the fine.
| Imposing a fine while knowing that it likely will never be
| collected is the very definition of "symbolic".
| arghwhat wrote:
| The threat of imprisonment if you don't pay the fine is
| the polar opposite of anything "symbolic". It puts
| individuals at significant personal risk should they ever
| make the mistake of traveling through the UK, in turn
| limiting their freedom of movement permanently even
| without being in prison.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| This is just not that big a deal for people who don't
| have family or business connections there already. It'll
| be like 'oh no, banned from a once-great place.' Had the
| UK remained in the EU, they might have been able to get
| other countries to honor such an arrest warrant, but as
| it is they just look petulant.
| kulahan wrote:
| It's quite literally the perfect example of symbolic
| action.
| arghwhat wrote:
| Imprisonment is the polar opposite of symbolic action.
| kulahan wrote:
| Correct, but irrelevant, since nobody has been imprisoned
|
| Edit: and nobody realistically could be
| spookie wrote:
| Agreed, but if anything, it just shows how they lack teeth to
| mandate any action outside their jurisdiction.
|
| If an entire continent was at stake, this would be a
| different story. But, in the end, the UK is small in the
| grand scheme of things. Any website operated outside the UK
| won't care, and actively demonstrating this is pretty
| illogical from their part.
| qingcharles wrote:
| It can stop the owners being able to travel to the UK or risk
| being detained.
| pengaru wrote:
| > It can stop the owners being able to travel to the UK or
| risk being detained.
|
| Big loss, that destination.
| p10jkle wrote:
| London is the third most visited city and Heathrow is the
| second most popular airport by international visitors. The
| prospect of being arrested upon arrival there might be a
| little annoying.
| oceansky wrote:
| "We'll always have Paris."
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Even if you don't intend to ever set foot in the UK you
| could find yourself there unintentionally, if your
| airline needs to make an unplanned diversion. So you
| basically have to forego any European air travel.
| Aloisius wrote:
| I wouldn't go that far. It's easy to find flights with
| routes where a diversion to the UK would either never
| make sense or be impossible due to distance.
|
| It would be a hassle though.
| retrac98 wrote:
| At this point we need big names to choose to remove their
| services in the UK so the government gets the message.
| smashah wrote:
| imgur did this.
|
| Unfortunately, I don't see any site being blocked that will
| make these shameless gremlins in power let go of their
| authoritarian control over the public's lives.
| rorylawless wrote:
| Presumably the "big names" are able to (or have already)
| implemented the requirements under the law and have an economic
| and reputational incentive to comply.
| quamserena wrote:
| The "big names" benefit greatly from having the resources to
| comply meanwhile smaller companies can't.
| bendigedig wrote:
| Hello, have you ever heard of democracy?
| nadermx wrote:
| 4chan is fighting them as well.
|
| https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/05/when-trolls-take-on-tyra...
| constantius wrote:
| Thanks for posting, an insightful overview of the ramifications
| of the Online Safety Act on online freedoms.
|
| > Perhaps most troubling, the UK's approach sets a dangerous
| precedent for global internet regulation. If every country can
| claim jurisdiction over any website accessible within its
| borders, the internet becomes subject to the most restrictive
| speech laws anywhere in the world.
|
| Another interesting point is that the UK could just ban the
| websites it finds objectionable, but that'd expose them as a
| censor, so instead the strategy is to basically force those
| websites to withdraw from the market voluntarily (or comply),
| which is a much less revolting story to sell to its population.
| owisd wrote:
| The UK already blocks certain websites at the national level,
| e.g. you can't access Pirate Bay from a UK ISP, so can't
| imagine Ofcom blocking 4chan would cause much consternation
| among those who aren't already against the OSA.
| maleldil wrote:
| I can access https://thepiratebay.org/index.html just fine
| from Hyperoptic.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| What an odd feeling to be rooting for 4chan...
| encom wrote:
| What a colossal waste of time. At this point, just unplug the
| undersea cables, and turn the UK into a big intranet. It's
| clearly what Ofcom wants.
| ceayo wrote:
| Maybe they can take some inspiration from North-Korea, I heard
| their intranet is great!
| toyg wrote:
| Ofcom does what the government tells it to do. And the
| government does what people tell them to do. You underestimate
| the popular support for censorship laws in the UK - the country
| still had a legally-empowered "Board of Film Censors" in
| 2010...
| deejaaymac wrote:
| My government doesn't seem to be listening to me, did you
| have yours professionally trained or something?
| doublerabbit wrote:
| > did you have yours professionally trained or something?
|
| It's rather simple really; the secret is money.
|
| Only then can you tame a politician.
| EarlKing wrote:
| One no more tames a politician than one tames a dog. When
| you stop feeding either their slab of meat, you become
| their next meal.
| subscribed wrote:
| You just need to donate to the ruling party or pay for the
| lunch and then you're good.
|
| https://www.vice.com/en/article/fujitsu-uk-sues-
| department-h...
| pelagicAustral wrote:
| 4chan will pay in two more weeks
| _imnothere wrote:
| huh? what makes you think of that?
| ronsor wrote:
| "Two more weeks" is a meme phrase used when an event will
| never actually happen. For example: "trust the plan! just two
| more weeks until XYZ" when XYZ will not happen.
| dekken_ wrote:
| tomorrow never comes
| rob_c wrote:
| tomorrow never dies
| kstenerud wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ4z0QhD92Y
| Culonavirus wrote:
| Ofcom can go of itself.
| rob_c wrote:
| If only
| DataDaemon wrote:
| poor Brits
| sunaookami wrote:
| Every country gets the government it deserves.
| ceayo wrote:
| the problem is this is affecting people outside of the UK
| too...
| rob_c wrote:
| Not likely
| rob_c wrote:
| Thanks for lumping me in with the great unwashed.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| "Why don't Afghani women rise up and overthrow the Taliban?
| Are they stupid?"
| themafia wrote:
| You can cheat elections with enough money. Excepting that
| citizens are generally not on an equal footing with their own
| government. Party politics exist.
| rarisma wrote:
| exercise in futility
| gadders wrote:
| I think the end state of this will be when Trump links
| prosecutions like this to tariff deals, and Kier Starmer will
| have to choose between mean words on the internet or further
| damage to an economy in already bad shape.
| observationist wrote:
| Starmer doesn't have very long, and he seems to be trying to
| accelerate his relocation out of government.
| gadders wrote:
| I think he is stuck, like the Prime Minister of France. He
| has a party that won't tolerate spending cuts of the required
| scale, and an economy that can't tolerate further tax raises.
|
| He also has the charisma of a wet sock, which doesn't help.
| TimorousBestie wrote:
| So another thirty years of Tory rule (or worse) because
| Labor did a dog that caught the car. Hurray.
| pqtyw wrote:
| Or Reform... considering that Conservatives are third in
| the polls currently.
|
| If there were elections now according to the current
| projections Tories would get less seats than the Liberal
| Democrats.
| TimorousBestie wrote:
| Yeah, I consider Reform worse.
| jen20 wrote:
| Starmer has longer than Trump all things being equal - he
| doesn't even need to call an election until July 5th 2029. He
| also has a massive majority, making a government collapse by
| other means highly unlikely.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Curious why Trump would even care and, if so, why he wouldn't
| lean toward his constituency that is largely in favor of these
| laws (see Texas, Florida, Utah, etc.).
| gadders wrote:
| I think there is a difference between straight p0rn, and a
| discussion forum that often posts NSFW images.
|
| 4chan is also the originator of the Pepe the Frog memes, and
| claims (whether people believe it or not) to have meme-d
| Trump into the Whitehouse in 2016.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| You saying that 1. since 4chan is a message board Trump
| might change his tariff policy to save it where he would't
| if it was a porn site and 2. Trump feels he owes them for
| 2016?
|
| I think neither a murky ideological battle nor a decade-old
| debt matters much to the president. And it probably matters
| that the UK made a tariff deal already, so changing terms
| would be a big act of self-sabotage.
| gadders wrote:
| I guess time will tell who's right?
| bfkwlfkjf wrote:
| Do members of parliament also need to provide their IDs when they
| want to jerk off?
| rob_c wrote:
| Under the UK goodness knows in principle yes but they have a
| protected status in terms of id and tax history (I, wish I was
| joking) which makes it problematic enough to even discuss...
| toyg wrote:
| Yes, but we pay for their VPN:
| https://www.tomsguide.com/computing/vpns/nordvpn-is-the-most...
| kijin wrote:
| Perhaps this whole ofcom business is the result of foreign
| VPN companies lobbying to increase market penetration in the
| UK?
|
| Because they're the only ones who are profiting from this
| fiasco! /s
| sanitycheck wrote:
| All the normie podcasts now falsely advertising VPNs as
| panaceae for every possible security problem are cashing in
| too.
| foofoo12 wrote:
| Think of all the kompromat VPN services could have.
| general1465 wrote:
| It could be better - like with Chat Control where politicians
| and other important persons are exempt.
| amiga386 wrote:
| Reminder that Google owes Russia more money than exists in the
| world, for continuing to disobey the Russian law which commands
| them to allow the Russian state to upload its propaganda on
| Youtube.
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxvnwkl5kgo
|
| Ofcom are basically the UK's Roskomnadzor. Tell them to go fuck
| themselves with a copy of the OSA.
|
| I'm from the UK and would gladly fuck all of them with a copy of
| the OSA, but I'd rather that the law were repealed. In the
| meantime, I'm telling everyone how to use VPNs and Tor Browser,
| and to never give anyone their real identity details on the
| internet.
| linuxftw wrote:
| Many people are saying this is symbolic and cannot be enforced.
| Unfortunately, that's just not true. Look at what happened to the
| founder of Telegram. Some jurisdiction decides you're violating
| their laws, all you need to do is catch a connecting flight or
| take a vacation on their soil or a place that will eagerly
| extradite, and you're a political prisoner.
|
| What happens if one of the officers of 4Chan or Gab is on a
| flight to Paris and the plane is redirected to London? Well,
| they're going to prison. The UK is a police state.
| ddalex wrote:
| It has been known that certain middle east countries force
| passengers crafts to divert and land to get their hands on
| wanted people
| cma wrote:
| I'm pretty sure the US and Europe do this as well, Evo
| Morales grounding incident:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
| fair_enough wrote:
| I still cannot believe the Geneva Conventions allowed this.
| This should have ended with John Kerry and Jen Psaki in a
| Swiss prison for at least 10 years, if not Barack Obama
| himself. We managed to convict accused war criminals with a
| lot less evidence in the Nuremburg trials. FOR EMPHASIS:
| I'm not comparing the severity of the crimes, I'm comparing
| the evidentiary basis for securing convictions.
|
| "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be
| America's friend is fatal." -Henry Kissinger
| ben_w wrote:
| The Geneva Conventions are international humanitarian
| laws consisting of four treaties and three additional
| protocols that establish international legal standards
| for humanitarian treatment in war.
|
| -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
|
| What would _those_ have to do with "intelligence
| contractor leaked our stuff, might be on the Bolivian
| president's plane, oh no a diplomatic incident"?
| fair_enough wrote:
| All you did was link to the main page of a wikipedia
| article and copy and paste the first sentence. Your
| response is so lazy, it doesn't even deserve a response,
| but I'm putting this out here for the benefit of the
| general public:
|
| https://www.icrc.org/en/article/grave-breaches-defined-
| genev... GC 4 Art. 147. "Grave breaches to which the
| preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of
| the following acts, if committed against persons or
| property protected by the present Convention: wilful
| killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including
| biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering
| or serious injury to body or health, UNLAWFUL DEPORTATION
| OR TRANSFER OR CONFINEMENT OF A PROTECTED PERSON,
| compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a
| hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person
| of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the
| present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive
| destruction and appropriation of property, not justified
| by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and
| wantonly."
|
| 1. Foreign heads of state are definitely protected
| persons.
|
| 2. Foreign heads of state transiting to and from
| diplomatic meetings are engaged in a protected activity.
|
| 3. If these laws apply between enemy nations engaged in
| declared war, they are even more applicable to countries
| at peace with one another.
|
| It turns out I'm even more right that I initially
| thought: this was not only a breach of the spirit of the
| Geneva Conventions, it was also a breach of the very
| letter of the law! Regardless, someone doesn't understand
| the purpose of the Geneva Conventions in the first place,
| so I'll elaborate...
|
| Edward Snowden himself is irrelevant, it doesn't matter
| if Osama Bin Laden was on that plane. The fact is that
| the US and its allies used deception to illegally ground
| a diplomatic flight, detain a foreign head of state, and
| engage in an illegal search and seizure.
|
| Furthermore, whether or not the countries involved were
| even at war is irrelevant. The purpose of the Geneva
| Conventions are to maintain a minimum set of
| international ethics that make diplomacy safe for
| diplomats. If a foreign head of state can be detained or
| imprisoned, and if his property can be searched or
| seized, then diplomatic negotiations for anything are now
| impossible.
|
| It doesn't matter if the reasons for breaking these rules
| are justifiable or not, the fact is that you're not
| trustworthy even in a basic capacity that allows for
| diplomatic negotiation. You're in the same perfidious
| bucket as Japanese Emperor Hirohito, Saddam Hussein, or
| Ruhollah Khomeini (Iranian Hostage Crisis).
|
| "Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across."
|
| -Sun Tzu
|
| P.S. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
| explicitly forbids detaining diplomats. See articles 27
| and 29:
|
| https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conven
| tio...
|
| YOU LOSE! YOU GET NOTHING! GOOD DAY, SIR!
| ben_w wrote:
| > If these laws apply between enemy nations engaged in
| declared war, they are even more applicable to countries
| at peace with one another.
|
| So far as I can tell, that claim is your own invention.
|
| Also, according to your own link's link to the full text:
| Article 4 - Definition of protected persons
| Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a
| given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find
| themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the
| hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of
| which they are not nationals. Nationals of a
| State which is not bound by the Convention are not
| protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find
| themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and
| nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be
| regarded as protected persons while the State of which
| they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation
| in the State in whose hands they are. The
| provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application,
| as defined in Article 13 . Persons protected
| by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the
| Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the
| Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for
| the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and
| Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12,
| 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the
| Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall
| not be considered as protected persons within the meaning
| of the present Convention.
|
| -- https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-
| treaties/gciv-1949/art...
|
| So, not what you say.
|
| Even if it was, Morales was not detained by another
| state, nor did his plane land under what is recognised as
| "coercion": The aircraft was denied overflight by several
| European states after rumours that Snowden was aboard, so
| it diverted to Austria, where it landed voluntarily for
| refuelling. Austria's authorities requested (but, in a
| legal sense, did not compel) inspection; Morales, in a
| legal sense, consented.
|
| Also, "search and seizure"? Nothing was seized, IIRC?
|
| > The purpose of the Geneva Conventions are to maintain a
| minimum set of international ethics that make diplomacy
| safe for diplomats.
|
| Nope, different laws for that. As you say elsewhere,
| Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Which,
| importantly, _is a different thing than the Geneva
| Conventions_. I mean, you can tell by how most of the
| words in the name are different...
|
| > YOU LOSE! YOU GET NOTHING! GOOD DAY, SIR!
|
| I see you're new here. Such energy doesn't go down well
| on this site.
| fair_enough wrote:
| ">> YOU LOSE! YOU GET NOTHING! GOOD DAY, SIR!
|
| I see you're new here. Such energy doesn't go down well
| on this site."
|
| ... Says the hot pocket trying to greentext like this is
| 2channel or 4chan.
|
| "Nope, different laws for that. As you say elsewhere,
| Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Which,
| importantly, is a different thing than the Geneva
| Conventions. I mean, you can tell by how most of the
| words in the name are different..."
|
| You think divinely inspired prose is flowing through your
| fingertips onto your keyboard like a modern-day Isaiah,
| but when I read your comments in your intended voice, all
| I hear is the sound of some incel whining about
| semantics.
|
| Oooooooh, you caught me! It was the Vienna Convention,
| not the Geneva Convention. You really scored some points
| today for the CIA and Palantir.
| fair_enough wrote:
| That is a good point I completely overlooked: your
| international flight can get redirected to a country you never
| intended to visit.
| kijin wrote:
| Durov's plane wasn't redirected to France, nor were the French
| planning to extradite him anywhere else for all we know. He
| willingly landed his own private jet in Paris.
|
| I understand what point you're trying to make, but Protasevich
| would have been a better example. Beware of whose airspace you
| fly over.
| tomku wrote:
| Durov is also, relevantly, a naturalized French citizen in
| addition to his various other passports. It's not just "some
| jurisdiction", it's one he opted into!
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| > The UK is a police state.
|
| No it isn't.
| haunter wrote:
| It's a nanny state which is even worse
| pessimizer wrote:
| It's a nanny state with the police arresting and jailing
| people for tweets. It's a police state, but "we" like to
| identify police states with Russians, Chinese, and
| Iranians, or whoever the state's enemy is at the moment.
|
| When police show up to your door and ask you to apologize
| to people for causing distress, and to consider not
| speaking from now on, you live in a police state. When you
| have banned political parties and organizations that
| trigger the mass arrests of peaceful protestors, you live
| in a police state. People who are comfortable with what is
| being suppressed never think of their country as a police
| state. At least until something happens to them or someone
| they care about, when they suddenly become "activists."
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > you live in a police state.
|
| _sigh_ You 've not lived in a police state, or more
| accurately, you've been online too much to actually get
| context.
|
| In the UK threatening to kill someone has been illegal
| since at least ~1880 something. Going online an publicly
| calling for the death of one or more person (which in the
| eyes of the law is pretty close to sending a good old
| paper death threat) is not only widely considered a dick
| move, its illegal.
|
| Now, How do you enforce that? the police investigate, and
| if its deemed a credible threat, you are visited by the
| plod. Who most likley go "look mate, don't be a dick".
|
| If you are really being a dick, you might be cautioned
| (taken to the police station and told "you're being a
| shit")
|
| The next stage up is appearing in court.
|
| And then you have to be convicted by a jury of your
| peers, and the burden of evidence is really quite high.
| ("oh but that mum, she was innocent." I advise you to
| read _all_ that she wrote, you know the extra bits that
| the sun can 't print)
|
| Its not like you're bundled into the back of a van by
| masked goons who refuse to identify themselves. Taken to
| a mass detention centre and not seen for weeks, and then
| yeeted to an illegal jail.
|
| But why are the police investigating social media?
|
| Now thats a good question. And the answer is: Musk
| doesn't moderate. Stuff that gets you a visit from the
| plod is generally against the community standards of
| social media, even X.
|
| Now to your point here: "When police show up to your door
| and ask you to apologize to people for causing distress"
|
| I've had a visit from the police, why? because I was
| young and being an antisocial shit. The police were not
| actually there to arrest me, and I don't think they could
| actually if they wanted to. The point was, they were
| there to make the town liveable for all it's citizens. I
| was "fucking around", and the police were gently telling
| me that I'd really not like to "find out".
|
| "OH BUT PERSONAL FREEDOM". Now, the thing is, I was
| perfectly free to carry on my bad ways. The problem was,
| those ways, had they descended further, would have
| resulted in jail time. The choice was mine.
|
| I don't want to live in a country where its acceptable to
| bully whomever I like, in the guise of personal freedom.
| Sure, speak your mind, but don't be a dick about it.
| linuxftw wrote:
| Let's not act like political speech has not been used to
| arrest people in the UK. To claim otherwise is a lie, or
| a level of ignorance only afforded to small children.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > To claim otherwise is a lie, or a level of ignorance
| only afforded to small children.
|
| And I have not claimed otherwise. during the troubles
| stuff went south very quickly. What _you_ are doing are
| conflating political persecution with the censoring of
| 4chan, an organisation who 's adherence to law is
| flexible at best.
| ben_w wrote:
| Criminal 1: "Quick, hide the money!"
|
| Criminal 2: "Coppers?"
|
| Criminal 1: "Worse. _Nannies_. "
|
| Nah, it's not worse.
| ntoskrnl_exe wrote:
| Still only enforceable if they leave the US soil.
| foldr wrote:
| Enforcing bad legislation that was enacted through the
| democratic process doesn't make a country a police state. It's
| just the rule of law. That has always included the enforcement
| of bad laws as well as good ones.
| linuxftw wrote:
| The UK locks up political dissidents under draconian 'safety'
| laws.
| foldr wrote:
| You don't refer to any specific cases so I can't offer any
| specific response, but the key phrase is
|
| > under ___ laws.
|
| A police state is one where the police arrest whoever the
| government directs them to arrest (rather than enforcing
| the law). Keir Starmer is not phoning up Police chiefs to
| get people disappeared.
| linuxftw wrote:
| The laws are whatever the UK's kangaroo courts decide
| they are. It's a total police state.
| foldr wrote:
| Courts ruling on matters of legal interpretation is how
| things are supposed to work. This is like saying "the US
| Constitution is whatever the kangaroo Supreme Court says
| that it is."
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > whatever the UK's kangaroo courts decide
|
| I mean there isn't a UK court. There's the supreme court,
| but one can still appeal to the Hague to get you out of a
| jam. But yeah, you keep thinking that. Its not like with
| have a shadow docket going on, undermining the
| constitution.
|
| > It's a total police state.
|
| I can still, on record call Starmer "a massive fucking
| prick".
|
| I can do that on TV.
|
| I will not get arrested, I will not have an ICE raid
| called on me, I won't get death threats.
|
| I won't lose my job[1]
|
| So no, its not a police state, because the judiciary is
| still working, more or less
|
| [1] not my current job anyway
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > The UK locks up political dissidents under draconian
| 'safety' laws.
|
| We used to just out and out shoot them.
|
| We used to demand that they have their voices literally
| overdubbed by an actor.
|
| We used to round people up and jail them for being too
| irish.
|
| We used to be in a civil war, up until the 2000s.
|
| You're just having a cyberpunk wet dream. Don't get me
| wrong, the OSA is an abomination. but you are being a
| hyperbolic child, especially as actual authoritarianism is
| happening in the USA, without anything as a peep from the
| same blowhards talking about the OSA.
| linuxftw wrote:
| You're absolutely right, the UK has always been despotic.
| And that's just at home, to say nothing about the
| colonies.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > the democratic process
|
| There's no such thing. There are many different processes
| that some people consider democratic and others don't. But
| "democratic" has no other meaning than rule by the governed.
| It is not a description of a specific political process.
| Especially one that bans _leading_ opposition candidates,
| which is clearly as undemocratic as anything that can occur
| in government. If a population wants to vote in somebody who
| is _currently_ in prison for crimes they are obviously guilty
| of, preventing them from doing it is a direct repudiation of
| democracy.
|
| Even _killing_ opposition candidates is marginally more
| democratic, because at least that only lasts for an instant.
| Saying that people cannot vote for the government of their
| choice is a restriction on the _governed,_ not a restriction
| on people who want to govern.
| foldr wrote:
| The UK does not 'ban' leading opposition candidates. The
| largest opposition party in Parliament is the
| Conservatives; Kemi Badenoch is not banned. The opposition
| party leading in the polls is Reform; Nigel Farage is not
| banned.
| basisword wrote:
| This is supposed to be a surprise? You break the law in a
| country, and then visit that country, and - shock - they arrest
| you.
| ben_w wrote:
| > The UK is a police state.
|
| The UK is further from being a police state than the USA is.
|
| And despite what Trump has been doing, both are nowhere near
| being that.
|
| I mean, UK cops aren't even routinely given firearms... _and
| the cops themselves don 't want to change that_.
| linuxftw wrote:
| I'll be the first to tell you, police in the USA are absolute
| tyrants. You can be killed for mouthing off to the police
| here, and likely nothing will happen to them.
|
| We don't jail people for tweets though.
| _imnothere wrote:
| Heh, I wonder if it's just like how 4chan anons j?rking off to
| themselves for the fact that Ofcom sends out pointless fines and
| sh?t.
| rootsudo wrote:
| I was not aware of the main driver, not mentioned, sanctioned
| suicide even existing.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctioned_Suicide
| gadders wrote:
| The people who run that site should be in jail. I think
| seriously encouraging suicide with details of methods crosses a
| line.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Now that they banned discussing suicide online I'm sure the
| number of suicides will plummet.
| gnfargbl wrote:
| You know, I'd like to actually know the answer to the
| question you're posing there. Does discussing suicide
| increase the overall rate, is it neutral -- or does it even
| _decrease_ it? The Samaritans are usually regarded as a net
| public benefit, though they tend not to encourage people to
| go through with it, whereas the Wikipedia link suggests that
| the users of that forum have some kind of fetish for it.
|
| I would also expect to find that the effect of internet was
| minimal (in my case because I think the drivers of suicide
| are mostly socioeconomic), but I'd really like to see a
| proper study. I'm also aware that there is quite a lot of
| peer-reviewed evidence that pro-anorexia websites _do_
| actually cause harm, and there 's an obvious parallel to be
| drawn.
| testdelacc1 wrote:
| Media coverage if done irresponsibly can encourage others
| to do the same.
|
| > Research from over 100 international studies provide
| evidence that the way suicide deaths are reported is
| associated with increased suicide rates and suicide
| attempts after reporting [6,7].
|
| > At the same time the WHO also suggests that positive and
| responsible reporting of suicides which promotes help-
| seeking behaviour, increases awareness of suicide
| prevention, shares stories of individuals overcoming their
| suicidal thinking or promotes coping strategies can help
| reduce suicides and suicidal behaviour [6,7,8]
|
| https://cmhlp.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2021/04/Resource-2-SPIR...
| myne_throwaway wrote:
| Having perused the site a number of times, I wouldn't say
| many people there "have a fetish for it". You're a million
| times more likely to be told to kill yourself on 4chan than
| on SS.
|
| SS simply says a) suicide should be _your_ choice, b)
| dehumanizing people for having suicidal thoughts is bad.
| Sadly these opinions are so far outside the overton window
| that suicidal people end up having no choice but to discuss
| their problems with other suicidal people - likely not a
| good basis for improvement but the human is a social animal
| so I 'll take it over nothing.
|
| And although SS provides info on how you can kill yourself,
| it also tells you how you _can 't_ kill yourself, and that
| has apparently saved me from permanent liver damage. So at
| least for me it has been objectively beneficial - more so
| than the brainless repetition of "consult a professional"
| which seems to be the gold standard for suicide prevention
| these days.
| gnfargbl wrote:
| Thanks for sharing. It's actually reassuring to hear that
| the forum isn't as dark as I assumed. Providing a route
| for people to work through things is surely more helpful
| than suppression.
|
| I am a little surprised that you perceive a gap between
| the advice to "consult a professional" and your a) and
| b). Do professionals working in this space not accept the
| validity of your thoughts and feelings, as a basic step?
| They really should.
|
| For whatever it's worth, I hope you choose to stay with
| us.
| kibbel wrote:
| Take a few with you bro. If it gets to that point. On an
| unrelated note, surely there's a synagogue nearby
| somewhere.
| rob_c wrote:
| be careful, did you fill in the correct form to be able to
| make that post?
| scrlk wrote:
| Looks like Hiro will have to cut the salaries of the 4chan
| jannies to pay the fine.
| robotnikman wrote:
| This is going to end up the same way when Russia fined Google 20
| decillion dollars. They won't receive a cent.
| fusslo wrote:
| One interesting bit is that the lawyer, RONALD D. COLEMAN is (or
| at least was) a youtube lawyer.
|
| He'd pop into 'law streams' from time to time to talk about cases
| and discuss newsworthy events out of the courts.
|
| He is as if New Jersey was transmuted into a man (I say that with
| great affection).
|
| I want to say, and I could be wrong, I became familiar with his
| name during the Rittenhouse trial. Or maybe the couple high
| profile trials after the Rittenhouse trial, that were popular
| while we all waited for covid to be 'over'.
|
| For whatever that's worth
|
| edit: he IS a real lawyer with real clients and real cases. I
| don't want to diminish anything because I called him a 'youtube
| lawyer'. I think it's more: A lawyer that sees value in being on
| youtube from time to time.
| quercusa wrote:
| Coleman won the 'Slants' case at SCOTUS, so he's the real
| thing.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matal_v._Tam
|
| https://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/legal-publications-ron...
| ycombinatrix wrote:
| Arguing a case in front of SCOTUS still means something
| today?
| antonymoose wrote:
| As a layman, I thought that was a bit of a prestige deal.
| Is it not?
| downrightmike wrote:
| Put enough money into the right-wing hands and anything is
| possible
| alphazard wrote:
| What do they seek to accomplish here? There is strong precedent
| for the US defending the 1st amendment against foreign interests.
| No UK bureaucrats are going to make a career out of this. Going
| after a company that can defend itself and can't be intimidated,
| will prevent them from bluffing successfully against smaller
| companies, who could realistically be intimidated. If I were
| working at Ofcom, I would stay away from the large US sites with
| access to good legal counsel, and instead try to intimidate the
| long tail that don't.
|
| Totally separate from the issue of whether this is good or bad:
| it doesn't look like these Ofcom guys are playing with a full
| deck.
| foldr wrote:
| I think you're overanalyzing it. They're just enforcing the
| law. You and I may agree that it's a bad law, but that doesn't
| mean that the people in charge of enforcing it necessarily have
| complex and sinister motives.
| alphazard wrote:
| I don't agree that wanting to further one's own career is
| complex or sinister. If the enforcement of laws wasn't
| aligned with career progress it would be bad for enforcement,
| including the laws that you and I want enforced.
|
| Even if the goal is just enforcement, you would get more
| enforcement, collect more fines, if you didn't put your
| ability to actually collect fines into question. When 4chan
| successfully defends itself and the UK extracts no money,
| that will show US companies which would have been in doubt,
| that they can also defend themselves.
| foldr wrote:
| Sure I mean, people generally want to do their jobs, which
| in this case means fining sites that don't comply with the
| legislation. I don't see any reason to think that it's more
| complex than that. If 4chan doesn't comply then the site
| will probably be blocked by UK ISPs, so I don't think the
| logic in your second paragraph really goes through.
| basisword wrote:
| >> When 4chan successfully defends itself
|
| How do you expect this to happen? The law is pretty clear
| and afaik 4chan has been pretty explicit that they know the
| law and they're ignoring it. 4chan's 'out' is that they
| don't have any legal presence in the UK. More legitimate
| enterprises do so the results of this will have no bearing
| on them.
| alphazard wrote:
| I'm talking specifically about US companies, which make
| up the lion's share of popular websites. They are served
| from the US as a primary location, and the company is
| incorporated there as well. Modulo CDN hosted assets,
| there is no presence in the UK.
|
| If the company is in the UK, then yes, they are obviously
| screwed. The damage to the UK's web presence has already
| been done. I don't expect anyone would want to
| incorporate an internet dependent company there.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| If this is deemed illegal in an US court then the OSA
| will be unenforcebale against US entities in the US
| (though not sure what's needed to set precedent).
|
| This is important because otherwise UK fines may be
| enforceable in US courts.
| bigbadfeline wrote:
| > This is important because otherwise UK fines may be
| enforceable in US courts.
|
| UK law is generally unenforcible in the US except
| extradition agreements _for crimes commuted while
| residing in the UK_. That 's not the case here and
| there's no agreement that applies to this case.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| It is _possible_ to enforce UK judgements and fines in
| the US, though my understanding is that it is not simple
| or guaranteed.
|
| I suppose the action 4chan is taking in US court is
| exactly to avoid this possibility.
| laughing_man wrote:
| You're underestimating how much thought governments put into
| things. Bureaucrats wouldn't be showcasing their own
| impotence with no reason.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| You're overestimating how much thought governments put into
| things.
|
| Governments are just organizations and organizations are
| made of people. We see plenty of folly in the private
| sector; the government can do it too, don't you worry.
| Arguably they can do folly in ways the private sector only
| dreams of, what with being funded by the taxpayer.
|
| The org is enforcing the law as written. The law, as
| written, is fucking stupid. Ergo the enforcement actions
| that derive from it themselves look fucking stupid.
| rob_c wrote:
| no, ofcom don't need to be picking the fights they are,
| they're choosing to support the political arm under the
| claims of "hate speech" and "ungood bad think"
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > they're choosing to support the political arm under the
| claims of "hate speech" and "ungood bad think"
|
| I do wonder if you bother to actually read the stuff you
| are typing.
|
| like have you _met_ anyone from ofcom? or seen the shit
| that 4chan routinely post?
|
| 4chan is literally the living embodiment of what the OSA
| was designed(and will probably fail) to stop. No
| moderation, loads of porn, incitement to violence
|
| but to your point, `claims of "hate speech"` Ofcom have no
| mandate for hate speech. But then I imagine facts are less
| interesting than a daydream of cypherpunk rebellion.
| amiga386 wrote:
| There is plenty of moderation on 4chan. It actively
| avoids breaking the laws of the country it's hosted in
| (the USA). You may not like what's on it, but it's not
| "extreme".
|
| It used to be more extreme, it's not today. It's why
| spinoffs like 8chan were created, they felt there was
| _too much_ moderation on 4chan. If you hear of some
| diabolical internet stunt, these days it was probably
| soyjak.party that organised it, not 4chan 's /b/
|
| As you allude, Ofcom cares not, they just want all sites
| to bend the knee to them.
| miohtama wrote:
| The law is law, but Ofcom wrote the regulation (1000+ pages)
| themselves with their interest groups. A lot of regulators
| went through revolving door and are now selling services for
| complying with Online Safety Act.
| aunty_helen wrote:
| 4chan are the "think of the children" bad guys to make an
| example out of.
|
| This isn't a play to get money or 4chan to comply, it's a play
| to increase the strength of their legislation. So expect
| stronger blocking etc to be on the cards to prevent foreign
| entities from avoiding the law.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Yes the government have already talked about banning VPNs and
| government taking copies of your private keys :-/
| Hamuko wrote:
| What private keys? _Any_ private keys?
| noir_lord wrote:
| No one has seriously discussed banning VPN's - one
| minister mentioned they where looking it and no one said
| anything about private keys either _as far as I know_.
|
| If I'm wrong someone can drop me a link since I live in
| the UK.
| rob_c wrote:
| it's been mulled over and keeps getting brought up again
| and again, the Overton window has shifted from "go away
| and come back when you're serious to", "christ how would
| we comply with that?" https://nordvpn.com/blog/tech-
| world-angry-with-theresa-mays-...
|
| If you live here how can you not spot how every govt
| since they kicked out brown has been pushing for this?
| noir_lord wrote:
| I'm aware and it's precisely because it's not a new thing
| been seeing it for years, I specifically was asking for a
| citation for _this_ government.
|
| I don't rule out they are daft enough to consider it, I
| just think they aren't quite _that_ stupid.
|
| OSA was a "something must be done, this is something, it
| must be done" thing - they can appease the mumsnet types
| for a bit with it and would generally prefer it quietly
| went back to sleep for a bit.
|
| Not least because it's gonna hurt them electorally
| because while the people who are slightly in favour of it
| where _slightly_ in favour of it a lot of the people who
| aren 't _really_ aren 't seeing it as either unworkable,
| stupid or unworkable _and_ stupid.
| alphazard wrote:
| This is a little wild to think about. It would make infosec
| impossible in the UK.
|
| Imagine the IT departments of every mutltinational
| corporation desperately trying to sort out permissions to
| keep important information off of machines deployed in the
| UK. New authorization groups for everyone in the UK, lots
| of meetings with lawyers to sort out what they can have
| access to. Everyone in the UK becomes a second class
| psuedo-trustworthy employee overnight.
|
| Were I in charge of IT, when that bombshell came across my
| desk, I think I would give every UK employee a chromebook,
| and migrate all workloads to the cloud. No data could be
| saved locally. No thumb drives. Depending on the
| availability of good cloud tools, the productivity hit
| might be so large that layoffs would be warranted.
| subscribed wrote:
| Oh, they'll just introduce mandatory digital ID, and the
| vpn registration.
|
| Companies will be permitted to use vpns as long as their
| AUP forbid employees from using their own for personal
| reasons.
|
| Or so.
|
| Plenty of the ways authoritarian can go.
| nly wrote:
| Good luck to them.
|
| VPN companies like Mullvad currently accept anonymous
| accounts with payment via crypto.
|
| You can also just lie about your country of origin when
| signing up to a VPN account even with a 'compliant'
| provider that blocks UK IPs.
| hamdingers wrote:
| That would be the proposal from IT, and the response from
| the C-suite will be "that's unfortunate, lay them all
| off."
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Urgh, the courts already have the power to compel you to
| provide private keys.
|
| It was for anti-terror, but now its being used on pricks
| like Yaxely-lenon, who Imagine will make much hay from it.
| Bender wrote:
| 4chan allows browsing with a VPN but to post using a VPN
| requires paying for their 4chan pass which many will not do
| so I guess reverse censorship will have its intended effect
| here.
| morkalork wrote:
| "They won't comply so these new restrictions are for your own
| good, citizen"
| jen20 wrote:
| Subject, surely?
| octo888 wrote:
| Sigh. It's been 42 years since it was cleared up and that
| most people became citizens. Can we stop with that remark
| already
| numpad0 wrote:
| Yeah, the ultimate goal is to end all user-generated content,
| first through moderation and then by algorithms, motivated by
| structural deficiency in commissioned for-profit contents
| that it is no match against user-generated. And the response
| sorely needed right now is resurgence of a distributed social
| media system that do not grossly undermine copyrights.
| mikkupikku wrote:
| 4chan is a small company with dubious profitability so I doubt
| they can afford much in the way of lawyers, but it doesn't
| really matter because they can simply ignore the UK completely.
| They only accept crypto anyway, so the UK can't even take away
| 4chan's payment processing in the UK.
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| From the article it looks like the fine here is basically for
| not complying with information requests (rather than a full
| investigation having concluded that 4chan is in violation of
| the substance of the Act). Ofcom probably thought 4chan would
| just respond to the requests by geoblocking the UK, which would
| have been good enough for them. But once their bluff was
| called, they really had no choice but to levy the fine.
| Announcing you are investigating someone for violating the law
| and then not bothering to fine them when they very clearly
| ignore your investigation (which is itself a violation of the
| law) is more destructive to your credibility than anything.
|
| It's not like the fine has zero consequences. It will likely
| restrict 4chan and its senior officials from visiting or
| dealing with the UK, which I'm sure is annoying on a personal
| level if nothing else. I don't know if Ofcom currently has the
| power to order ISPs to block non-compliant domains, but if it
| doesn't you can bet it will be using this to push for that
| power.
|
| As for not being able to intimidate the long tail: for US
| companies, yes this might further weaken Ofcom's influence over
| them. But companies with a UK presence who try to call Ofcom's
| bluff after this are likely going to have a bad time.
| blibble wrote:
| > it doesn't look like these Ofcom guys are playing with a full
| deck
|
| they're a quango, staffed by those who couldn't make it as
| civil servants (not a high bar)
|
| I'd be surprised if anyone who works there has ever used the
| internet
|
| similarly useless are ofwat (water) and ofgem (energy), both of
| which allowed massive scandals to happen on their watch
|
| ofwat: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/21/new-
| powerfu...
|
| ofgem: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63805028
| rob_c wrote:
| it's asif we need to reform the system and find a better
| way...
| blibble wrote:
| ofwat is shortly to be abolished
|
| (whether or not that will help is another matter)
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > staffed by those who couldn't make it as civil servants
|
| Still civil service.
|
| > I'd be surprised if anyone who works there has ever used
| the internet
|
| They do, but the pricks who created the law are/were
| reactionary politicians, who couldn't be bothered to actually
| draft decent laws.
|
| Ofwat and ofgem are different issues, they have suffered
| regulatory capture.
|
| Ofwat has the power to bankrupt the entire water system.
| Which is great, but then the government would have to bail
| out the shareholders. which means not only higher taxes, but
| no private investment for large scale. Oh and ballooning
| public debt.
|
| Which means stagflation, well harder stagflation. There is a
| ton more to this.
|
| Don't get me wrong it needs reform, but that costs money. We
| need to have the money to hire decent staff. But with the
| impeding cuts and what ever dipshittery from Reform next,
| thats not going to happen
| finghin wrote:
| In the UK and Ireland, a distinction is generally made
| between public servants, who are paid by government
| appropriation, and civil servants, who are employed
| directly by government departments and the organisations
| they directly control and fund.
| blibble wrote:
| they're not civil servants, because the the organisations
| were deliberately created to be separate from whitehall
|
| (and ministerial interference)
| moomin wrote:
| Looked this up. They're not part of the civil service
| transfer scheme so I think you are 100% correct. They
| also in theory have their own corporate structure but
| since they literally publish documents explaining how to
| map it to civil service grades I think it's fair to say
| the overall experience isn't that different. But
| different tenure, different pension, they're not civil
| servants.
| bendigedig wrote:
| > There is strong precedent for the US defending the 1st
| amendment against foreign interests.
|
| How does this ruling affect the company's right to free speech
| in the US? It's a fine for refusing to comply with a law in the
| UK; any sufficiently competent organisation could choose to
| comply with censorship/age gating in one country and avoid
| those restrictions in all others.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| A lot of the US rules in this area came from UK courts trying
| to enforce defamation/libel related claims on US authors and
| journalists.
|
| The American consensus basically became that US courts don't
| enforce overseas judgments on free speech stuff where the
| speech would be legal in the US. Even if that speech could be
| "heard" elsewhere.
|
| See the Ehrenfeld v. Bin Mahfouz case (2005) and subsequent
| US SPEECH act (2010).
| RansomStark wrote:
| The thing about laws are they stop at the border. Unless you
| are sufficiently powerful that you can ignore the rights of
| other countries and their people, the UK isn't powerful
| anymore, but hasn't grasped that concept yet (I'm British, at
| this point it's just kind of sad).
|
| So UK laws stop at the UK border.
|
| 4Chan is a US company, based in the US, with all its people
| and stuff in the US. It has never had a presence in the UK.
|
| In the US people and companies have the right to free speech
| guaranteed under the first amendment, that includes speech
| conducted online. Many people would consider having the
| ability to speak, but having the government restrict hearing
| that speech to amount to a free speech violation.
|
| The only jurisdiction 4Chan operates in is the US and they
| are defending their rights: they also have that right, the US
| isn't North Korea, or China, or the UK.
|
| This isn't a matter of can they censor, of course they can.
| This is a matter of they don't have to, and they won't.
|
| The UK has no jurisdiction, or reason to believe they have
| jurisdiction, or ability to enforce its laws
| extraterritorially over pretty much any foreign entity, but
| especially not the US.
|
| Anyway you look at this, this is a jumped up little backwater
| not content with robbing their own citizens of their rights,
| they are now trying to rob others too.
| ben_w wrote:
| > How does this ruling affect the company's right to free
| speech in the US?
|
| As I understand it, not at all.
|
| I don't think the British institutions care at all about
| their rights to do whatever they want outside the UK; the
| problem is, 4chan does provide access to people in the UK, so
| it's a bit like a pirate radio station that the UK would like
| to not be receiving owing to the station's complete lack of
| interest in following UK laws.
|
| To put it another way, if 4chan blocked the UK, the UK would
| consider this development to be appropriate. UK might not
| cancel the penalty fine, but that's because the offence for
| which it has been issued has already occurred; after all,
| nobody gets out of an already-issued littering ticket during
| a holiday by returning to their home country.
| EarlKing wrote:
| > To put it another way, if 4chan blocked the UK, the UK
| would be fine with this outcome.
|
| They really wouldn't, otherwise they would've done that
| already since it is well within their power to command ISPs
| to blackhole any offending website. That they chose to levy
| fines instead tells me all I need to know about their true
| intentions.
| ben_w wrote:
| I believe the order of escalation here is:
|
| 1) Identify non-compliance or risk
|
| 2) officially request information from the website
|
| 3) wait for reply
|
| 4) formal enforcement proceedings: a fine and prep for
| court action (they are here)
|
| 5) convince a court to order the site to be blocked
|
| https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-
| harmful-c...
|
| Note that they themselves say there:
| Where appropriate, in the most serious cases, we can seek
| a court order for 'business disruption measures', such as
| requiring payment providers or advertisers to withdraw
| their services from a platform, or requiring Internet
| Service Providers to block access to a site in the UK.
|
| That sounds to me like they consider curtailing speech by
| blocking a website to be one of the last things to try,
| not the first.
| EarlKing wrote:
| Ofcom attempting to enforce it's laws upon a US-resident
| corporation that has no business presence in the United
| Kingdom is the very definition of affecting one's right to
| free speech in the United States. This is why the US has a
| rich history of case law to draw upon for defining personal
| jurisdiction. In this case, Ofcom is perhaps hoping to
| exploit uncertainty regarding personal jurisdiction to impose
| its law upon foreign citizens who otherwise have no business
| in the United Kingdom. So, yeah, it definitely affects a
| company's right to free speech in the US. It affects
| EVERYONE's right to free speech in the US, and it should not
| be dismissed simply because 4chan is the defendant.
| IlikeKitties wrote:
| Is there any way to donate to the defense found here as a non-
| american non-brit?
| irusensei wrote:
| > "Services can no longer ignore illegal content"
|
| But that's exactly what 4chan and kiwi farms are doing.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I'm not sure why they should care. Just banhammer the entire
| island. Everybody should. They can have their own independent
| internet, that conforms to UK laws. Let's see when HN will be
| fined, for advocacy of circumvention of local laws, or of strong
| encryption.
|
| Facebook banned all Canadian news outlets, and they were probably
| actually making a few bucks from them. I can't imagine that 4chan
| would care too much about losing UK users. 4% of barely any
| revenue, maybe? Just ban them all; they're insignificant. The
| only drawback for UK citizens is that Reform will go up a point
| or two in the polls from people who prefer the authoritarianism
| they don't know to the authoritarianism they do, but considering
| the awful alternatives it's really six of one a half-dozen of the
| other.
|
| One of the rational reasons people are preferring nationalists is
| simply because they are _less powerful_ than the neolibs, who all
| work together against their populations. Better a the dumb local
| boss you know than a being the local outpost of a faceless world
| boss.
| ben_w wrote:
| > One of the rational reasons people are preferring
| nationalists is simply because they are less powerful than the
| neolibs, who all work together against their populations.
| Better a the dumb local boss you know than a being the local
| outpost of a faceless world boss.
|
| If you think that's rational, you are wrong. Rationalising,
| sure, just not rational.
|
| "Divide and conquer" is very much desired by those who want to
| control you, and thinking "a local authoritarian for local
| people" will (or even could) eject the influence of the outside
| world, is a false narrative.
|
| Popular sentiment though, so may well get authoritarian parties
| some votes.
| naet wrote:
| I think if a country is vehemently an international or foreign
| website it should be on _them_ to block their citizens access,
| not on website operators to somehow try to geo-restrict that
| region from access.
|
| That could lead to tons of countries having their own internet
| firewalls similar to China, if that's what they want to do.
| Which I probably wouldn't like.
|
| But the alternative of being liable for _any_ new legislation,
| fines, etc, from any country in the world just because I
| operate a small website on the internet seems at least equally
| bad.
| drnick1 wrote:
| At this point every major website and "smart" phone app should
| just refuse to comply with these idiotic laws and simply block UK
| users. It's only when the masses realize that the freedoms they
| care about are being eroded that something will change.
| makerofthings wrote:
| The UK government want to get on with blocking websites and VPNs
| as soon as possible. 4chan was obviously not going to comply and
| was picked to allow ofcom to quickly move onto the next step.
| throwaway98743 wrote:
| Commentators criticising the act and ofcom's attempt, do
| understand the online safety act is to prevent children from
| watching porn? The critique always lacks any form of grounding in
| reality or proposal of alternative solutions
| dmitrygr wrote:
| There is already a method for that, it is called parenting.
| Technology never could, cannot, and never will solve problems
| that are human in nature
| throwaway98743 wrote:
| ^ this is my point. You remove any grounding. We don't allow
| children to drink (we allow them younger in the UK than the
| US), drive, and many other things we have safeguards for.
| Also, how do you suggest parenting solves for this? Are
| children with parents all the time? Does the data suggest an
| only parenting technique works? No, course not. What's your
| solution to something that is a problem? All up for a
| critique of the act but to say "there is no problem" is
| absurd.
| throwaway98743 wrote:
| Children freely watching porn is a technology problem not a
| not a nature problem
| general1465 wrote:
| With this logic we could ban selling knives, because you can
| use them to kill somebody.
| throwaway98743 wrote:
| In the UK you need to be over 18 to buy knives
| general1465 wrote:
| Complete ban should be enforced, even if it saves a one
| child, it is worth it.
| silexia wrote:
| Or ban guns
| jackjeff wrote:
| I'd be curious to know how the UK going to enforce its extra
| territorial law against a company with no ties to the UK?
| gherkinnn wrote:
| Semi-related view from a former oldfag (is that term still
| used?), I am of the firm opinion that Insta and Twitter are far
| more damaging than 4chan ever was. Not that it doesn't have its
| filth, of course. But these image boards are too obscure for
| broad appeal and do not purposefully mess with people's psyche to
| show them more ads.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-13 23:01 UTC)