[HN Gopher] 4Chan mocks PS520k fine for UK online safety breaches
___________________________________________________________________
4Chan mocks PS520k fine for UK online safety breaches
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...
Author : mosura
Score : 212 points
Date : 2026-03-19 14:46 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| chrisjj wrote:
| _a lawyer representing the company - which has previously said it
| won 't pay such fines - has responded to the demand with an AI-
| generated cartoon image of a hamster._
| robthebrew wrote:
| 4chan is still a thing? I thought it died long ago. Perhaps I
| grew up.
| nslsm wrote:
| It is, it didn't, and you didn't.
| rconti wrote:
| > "Companies - wherever they're based - are not allowed to sell
| unsafe toys to children in the UK. And society has long protected
| youngsters from things like alcohol, smoking and gambling. The
| digital world should be no different," she said.
|
| So the UK plans to fine Parisian bars that serve alcohol to
| British under-18s in France on holiday?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| This is more like the UK fining Parisian bars that _courier_
| alcohol to under-18s _in the UK_.
| shaky-carrousel wrote:
| Which is equally absurd.
| OJFord wrote:
| No it isn't? Real example is Amazon, a US company that
| sells alcohol in the UK, and is required to check age on
| order & delivery.
| qup wrote:
| Amazon is an international corporation with UK-
| incorporated entities.
| OJFord wrote:
| That's true but not relevant to the spirit of the point.
| ronsor wrote:
| It is relevant. There's a material difference between
| shipping material overseas and shipping it (and handling
| it) within the destination country.
|
| If someone mails $ProhibitedItem at a USPS to the UK,
| then it's the job of local UK police and/or customs to
| reject the parcel if it is prohibited. It's the UK's
| problem, de facto if not de jure, because the sender is
| out of reach.
|
| If someone with a UK subsidiary and local processing
| center mails $ProhibitedItem to their center and delivers
| it to someone in the UK, then that's more than the UK's
| problem.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| And on an electronic delivery, is a great firewall the
| equivalent of customs? And therfore the only way to
| enforce sovereignty?
| shrubble wrote:
| It's a lot more like banning the importation of books and
| newspapers that the government doesn't agree with...
| tsukikage wrote:
| More like the UK fining US porn publishers for not stopping
| British kids searching through the hedges in their street
| jjgreen wrote:
| Hedge-porn, I remember hedge-porn ...
| strideashort wrote:
| Not exactly.
|
| It's like fining Parisian bars to hand over alcohol to
| couriers without checking to whom couriers will deliver it.
|
| Couriers = all involved network providers.
| OJFord wrote:
| In theory the children are committing a crime yes, but
| obviously enforcement is extremely low; left mainly to their
| teachers.
|
| I don't think UK law governs foreign companies' overseas
| operations based on the nationality of the customer though, no.
| dijit wrote:
| They're not breaking any law.
|
| Laws apply to actions in the country, they're not based on
| citizenship.
|
| If you go to Amsterdam and sleep with a hooker, you didn't
| break a law by doing that: despite prostitution (specifically
| _purchasing_ sex) being illegal in many western countries.
| pearlsontheroad wrote:
| afaik, prostitution is either legal or partially legal on
| the majority of Western countries.
|
| https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-
| rankings/countries...
| dijit wrote:
| Normally its considered legal to sell but not legal to
| buy.
|
| Prostitution is primarily conducted by women, and this is
| a way for them to still seek protection and healthcare
| while still technically criminalising the practice.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| Countries do have laws that apply even when you leave the
| country. For example, Americans living abroad still have to
| pay taxes.
| dijit wrote:
| Extraterritorial taxation is _extremely_ rare; and its
| less of a law and more of a "cost of citizenship" since
| you're allowed to get rid of it.
| maxlybbert wrote:
| The US can be very creative about when its jurisdiction
| applies ( https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/94-166 ).
|
| Manuel Noriega and "el Chapo" Guzman were both convicted
| of crimes they committed outside the US but that caused
| other people to commit crimes inside the US.
|
| Traveling to countries for child sex abuse is illegal and
| severely punished, although it appears that the law is
| about the traveling with intent, and not (officially)
| about the actions that take place overseas:
| https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-
| ceos/extraterritor... .
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| That's not always true, and increasingly less so,
| particularly the Australians and the crime of child sex
| tourism. I am sure it'll be expanded to hate crimes and
| disturbing the peace laws as well and from there used as a
| political cudgel to suppress opposition to government
| policies. At least for now you have to be a citizen of the
| country but the UK has stated an intention to extradite US
| citizens for online hate crimes.
| itintheory wrote:
| In the US there is a federal law related to this:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_Act
| OJFord wrote:
| Commonwealth countries have extraterritorial jurisdiction.
| I don't know that it's ever been enforced for something so
| relatively petty as intoxication or prostitution, but it is
| nevertheless the law. (Obligatory IANAL though.)
| jltsiren wrote:
| Laws apply to whatever they say they apply to. Limiting
| their scope to actions in the country, or at least giving
| precedence to similar foreign laws, is at least as much
| about the practicalities of enforcement as a matter of
| principle.
|
| For example, Finland claims jurisdiction over crimes where
| the action itself or its relevant consequences happen in
| Finland or the victim is a Finnish citizen, permanent
| resident, or legal entity. Then there are plenty of rules
| and exceptions detailing what those principles mean in
| practice.
| tacticalturtle wrote:
| > Laws apply to actions in the country, they're not based
| on citizenship.
|
| According to what? Laws can be whatever a country says, so
| long as they have the mechanism to enforce it.
|
| See: the US using special forces to kidnap Maduro
| rjsw wrote:
| France can fine Parisian bars that serve alcohol to under-18s
| itself.
| Aloisius wrote:
| I'm not sure one needs to stretch the analogy this far.
|
| If someone from the UK calls me on the phone and I start
| reading them posts on 4chan, is the UK going to fine me too?
| pwillia7 wrote:
| you got yer loiscence?
| themafia wrote:
| They should arrange a book burning too. Since they seem to
| believe that foreign words are inherently dangerous.
| OsrsNeedsf2P wrote:
| 4chan's lawyer's response:
|
| "In the only country in which 4chan operates, the United States,
| it is breaking no law and indeed its conduct is expressly
| protected by the First Amendment."[0]
|
| [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c624330lg1ko
| petcat wrote:
| And now we'll watch the UK take the logical next step which is
| for the government to mandate that all ISPs in the country
| block 4chan.
|
| CCP "Great Firewall" style.
| tokyobreakfast wrote:
| Most Brits already have a VPN to beat off so the effect will
| be negligible.
| jjice wrote:
| "Most" is probably not accurate. I can't imagine the
| average middle aged individual in the UK has a VPN they use
| regularly. I'd be pleasantly surprised if that was the
| case.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| The average middle aged individual probably doesn't read
| 4chan.
|
| VPN take up in the UK is around 20-25%
| petcat wrote:
| And then they'll make VPNs illegal
| itintheory wrote:
| I suspect they'll be harder (impossible?) to block, but
| that will probably deter the casual user.
| Melonai wrote:
| Russia is leading the pack in banning VPNs, and they're,
| surprisingly, getting pretty good at it. They caught my
| naive attempts at trying to use Tailscale, WireGuard and
| OpenVPN immediately. People in government are laughing at
| the populace struggling to bypass their whitelists,
| blocks and slowdowns, directly saying that "you can have
| your VPN, it just won't work, and you will never access
| anything beyond our Russian sites again. Have fun.".
| Currently trying to find a way around it using some of
| the new VPN protocols that popped up trying to bypass the
| Roskomnadzor DPI, and maybe, I certainly hope, that I
| will even succeed, but either way they're showing that
| it's technically feasible.
|
| I really hope for all the people in the UK that your
| country doesn't go down this route.
| mikeodds wrote:
| Already have the makings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o
| f_websites_blocked_in_th...
| j-krieger wrote:
| You'd be amazed at the times I've argued with people on HN
| that free speech infringement by the UK government has grown
| rampant, only for them to enact the next draconian law a
| month later.
| dmix wrote:
| UK is trying to be like Russia and China, where a minder
| will show up at your door if you post something the
| government doesn't like. Then people online will defend it
| because the investigation didn't turn into a full criminal
| charge or they say the people simply deserved it.
|
| The reality is this will seriously chill speech broadly
| across the country regardless of either of those outcomes,
| and the technical costs of enforcement will be steep.
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| We don't have any pro-free-speech political parties, nor
| a written constitution unfortunately.
|
| I mean there are parties that say they like free speech,
| but it never extends to the sort of speech they disagree
| with, or by people of the wrong colour/religion/gender
| etc.
| vdqtp3 wrote:
| Same. The responses are consistently "but they only
| restrict bad speech"
| RobotToaster wrote:
| We've had Hadrian's firewall blocking certain piracy sites
| for years.
| deaddodo wrote:
| As shown in that same article, they also responded:
|
| >>>
|
| "Companies - wherever they're based - are not allowed to sell
| unsafe toys to children in the UK. And society has long
| protected youngsters from things like alcohol, smoking and
| gambling. The digital world should be no different," she said.
|
| "The UK is setting new standards for online safety. Age checks
| and risk assessments are cornerstones of our laws, and we'll
| take robust enforcement action against firms that fall short."
|
| <<<
|
| Quite frankly she seems completely out of touch with her own
| argument. The UK can certainly legislate away tobacco sales,
| for instance; they can't go after tobacco producers in a
| foreign state. 4Chan operates in the US and is a US company.
| They have no jurisdiction over it, even if their citizenry can
| access it; it's on them to block that access if they don't like
| it. Unless they're also implying that the US government should
| be allowed to go after UK companies that don't follow it's free
| speech regulations because American citizens can access them.
| chrisjj wrote:
| > 4Chan operates in the US
|
| And the UK... each time it delivers there.
| wat10000 wrote:
| I disagree. It's no different from selling to a foreign
| buyer by sending the product in the mail. You're not doing
| business in their country, and it's the buyer's
| responsibility to adhere to their local laws about imports,
| not yours.
| richwater wrote:
| The UK can block whatever they want if they'd like to
| become an authoritarian firewall state.
|
| But they have no legal basis to fine 4chan.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| 4Chan has blocked the entire UK IP range. They do not host
| any infrastructure there.
|
| They are bound by UK law exactly as much as they are bound
| by Venutian or Mars law.
| akersten wrote:
| > 4Chan has blocked the entire UK IP range.
|
| And honestly this is more than they really should even
| have to do. I think it does go above their obligation.
| They're doing Offcom a favor here, they don't even have
| to figure out how to block it themselves.
| 1317 wrote:
| > 4Chan has blocked the entire UK IP range
|
| this isn't true
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| Nope. A direct connection from residential British
| Telecom line is fine.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Don't give up your day job.
| chrisjj wrote:
| Too late. I did that years ago!
| christkv wrote:
| Their goal is to create a presedent so they can start
| applying it to platforms they don't like. Its happening all
| over Europe not just the UK and the plan is clear. They want
| to repress discourse that is not officially sanctioned.
| deaddodo wrote:
| They can try to set whatever precedent they like. But US
| courts won't accept the argument, so it'll just stay a fee
| that accumulates on some paper ledger.
| ls612 wrote:
| And then the children of the admin are traveling
| somewhere and get yoinked as leverage by the
| UK/EU/Brazil/Whoever and all of the legal arguments in
| the world won't do you any good. There is only one law
| that matters in the real world as much as so many
| westerners want to put their head in the sand about it.
| whatever1 wrote:
| The real goal it to start banning US sites like fb,aws etc
| so that Europe starts building their own
| christkv wrote:
| Nah fb, aws etc will comply. They have no spine.
| zer00eyz wrote:
| > Europe starts building their own
|
| They have had decades to do this. They have not.
|
| Risk aversion and Regulation are the heart of the issue.
|
| Same things that have flattened the American housing
| market for the last 30 years.
| whatever1 wrote:
| They did not because they were in the honeymoon with the
| US. They were buying weapons and expensive American
| services in exchange for security. This era is over.
|
| Today building social network or a cloud provider is a
| trivial exercise. If the financial incentive is there
| (aka ban of US services), they will pop out like
| mushrooms.
| gnfargbl wrote:
| Speaking as a UK citizen: you're exactly right. If the UK
| wants to prevent 4chan from being imported into the UK then
| it needs to block it at the border as it would for physical
| goods.
|
| The fact that's technically hard to do (at least without
| going full-on CCP) doesn't change the situation. Attempting
| to fine a foreign entity for doing something that breaks no
| laws in the foreign entity's jurisdiction is just risible.
| thunderfork wrote:
| It's very much a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. "It's an
| import", so they have to respond to it like they'd respond
| to imports...
|
| But unlike physical imports, there's a sense that blocking
| these imports is an affront to base philosophical freedom
| in a way that prohibiting physical imports isn't.
| akersten wrote:
| > there's a sense that blocking these imports is an
| affront to base philosophical freedom in a way that
| prohibiting physical imports isn't.
|
| It would serve UK legislators well to explore that
| tingling sense some more before they consider any further
| efforts in this direction, but that's just my two pence.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| UK ISPs do block some domains though.
| gnfargbl wrote:
| Which does nothing to block 4chan, because everyone knows
| what a VPN is and how to get one.
| dmix wrote:
| The same UK politicians are now pushing to block VPNs.
| Hence the great firewall talk which they are trying to
| skirt by fining US companies.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| Right, but it shows their mindset. They're not letting
| China comparisons stop them from doing anything. It's not
| about the technology. In their mind, it's about the
| purpose and the legitimacy of any censorship.
| frostiness wrote:
| Unlike other websites though, VPNs are generally banned
| from posting on 4chan, which would definitely hurt
| traffic.
| cm2187 wrote:
| And we shall call it "the Great Firewall of the UK".
|
| It is amazing that these guys don't see the irony of
| monkeying totaliterian states policies, in term of
| surveillance and censorship.
| tokyobreakfast wrote:
| So, the Great FUK for short?
| bigfatkitten wrote:
| The UK, like Australia and many of its other offshoots
| has always had a bit of a totalitarian streak.
| 2postsperday wrote:
| Meanwhile every state in the US is implementing age
| verification "technology".
|
| There is something bigger at play, and its not US or
| UK...
| bigmealbigmeal wrote:
| They're going to keep ignoring these issues because the
| wrong people are pointing them out. The enemy must always
| be wrong.
|
| Tribalism is awful for societies. There's a reason Russia
| put so much effort into amplifying it in the west.
| drcongo wrote:
| I hope they do block it.
| bigfatkitten wrote:
| > even if their citizenry can access it; it's on them to
| block that access if they don't like it
|
| Not even China and North Korea whine about or send fake
| "fines" to offshore entities. They just block their sites and
| move on with life.
| spacedcowboy wrote:
| [sigh] and this is the first (mandated) step in that
| process. The UK don't expect 4chan to pay the fine, which
| means, once the period to pay has expired, they'll just be
| blocked instead.
| comex wrote:
| > Unless they're also implying that the US government should
| be allowed to go after UK companies that don't follow it's
| free speech regulations because American citizens can access
| them.
|
| Precedent in the US is that courts do in fact have
| jurisdiction over a foreign website's owner if the owner
| "purposefully availed itself of the U.S. forum or
| purposefully directed its activities toward it", a test which
| is less demanding than it sounds. [1]
|
| And US has taken advantage of this to go after foreign
| websites such as Megaupload, BTC-e, Liberty Reserve, etc.
|
| Therefore, _if_ there were a US law requiring companies to
| follow free speech rules, it could potentially be enforced
| against foreign website owners. But no such law currently
| exists. The First Amendment itself only applies to the US
| government (and to companies working on behalf of the US
| government). There is also the SPEECH Act, which, among other
| provisions, creates a cause of action where if someone sues a
| US person in a foreign court over their speech, they can sue
| back in US court. But only for declaratory judgement, not
| damages or an injunction. The goal is mainly just to prevent
| US courts from enforcing judgements from the foreign court in
| such cases.
|
| [1] https://tlblog.org/how-to-find-personal-jurisdiction-
| over-fo...
| umpalumpaaa wrote:
| Well the US government / prosecutors go after people who
| break their laws all the time... eg. Kim .Com, etc
| kps wrote:
| It's unfortunate that the US lawyers did not cite the reply
| given in Arkell v Pressdram.
| 2b3a51 wrote:
| Arkell v Pressdram was in response to a civil claim that
| never reached a court, so slightly different. I take the
| wider point though.
| Onavo wrote:
| The directors and officers better not transit through Heathrow
| without giving the current whitehouse admin a hefty donation
| first.
|
| Mother Britain will be happy to make an example out of them if
| Uncle Sam doesn't intervene.
| dmix wrote:
| The lawyer is great on Twitter, he's not only defending 4chan,
| he's on a crusade to prevent this stuff in the future and
| trying to get bills passed in the US.
|
| https://x.com/prestonjbyrne
| epolanski wrote:
| But 4chan doesn't geoblock users?
|
| So it's clearly operating globally.
|
| Country flags are a major feature of the board.
| sippeangelo wrote:
| 4chan is clearly operating in the US. The UK can easily cut
| the overseas cables and fix the problem!
| bpodgursky wrote:
| It does seem like if the UK wants to do content filtration
| (blocking noncompliant websites) they will need to own up to it
| and set up a China-style firewall, rather than hoping they can
| badger the service providers into doing it for them.
| Retr0id wrote:
| Yes, this is part of the consent manufacturing process.
| kleene_op wrote:
| That's the plan. But if they do it right away people will
| revolt.
| vasco wrote:
| People used to tell kids to not go to a shady part of town while
| they spent their afternoons outside unsupervised. Can parents not
| tell kids to not go to certain websites? We still went to the
| shady part of town and the kids will still go to 4chan but at
| least we don't need to give away freedoms. Such erosion of
| freedom for the common person because parents can't have an
| awkward conversation is irritating.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Do you have children?
| oarsinsync wrote:
| Or this should be done at point of sale, like we do with all
| controlled substances.
|
| We don't sell bottles containing alcohol and then expect to
| filter the alcohol out if the child wants to drink from it.
| We have two different bottles: alcoholic bottles and non-
| alcoholic bottles. If you are a child, you cannot purchase
| the former.
|
| Stop selling unrestricted computing devices to children.
| Require a person to be 18+ to purchase an unrestricted
| internet device. Make it clear that unrestricted internet
| access, like alcohol and nicotine (and the list goes on) is
| harmful to children. That resolves 90% of the problem.
|
| And lets be fair, the problem isn't the children. Children
| want what all their peers have. The problem isn't their
| peers. The problem is the parents. Give the spineless parents
| a simpler way to say no to their children, and the overall
| problem goes away.
| mapotofu wrote:
| I do. I also grew up on 4chan because I didn't have an
| involved parent, and I lived in the suburbs where finding
| friends to just "go outside and play" wasn't an option.
| Consuming that content was genuinely hurtful and probably
| forever altered my psyche. I have the means and knowledge, in
| technical skill and life experience, to know how these things
| work, and protect my kids from that. Most people don't.
| huflungdung wrote:
| Haven't you considered that the fact you were exposed to
| these things made you who you are today am able to say that
| with conviction. If you had been shielded from the reality
| on human extremism you would not.
| financltravsty wrote:
| Vouched, because this was going to be my counterpoint as
| someone who had the same circumstances as the
| grandparent.
|
| Despite the enormously heinous stuff I've seen on that
| site, it has made me a better writer, developed my
| critical thinking skills, and given me a perspective on
| the world and its people that wouldn't have existed
| without.
|
| It also introduced me to many different things and
| developed my taste beyond measure.
|
| The massive downside, that I suspect the grandparent
| still wrestles with, is integrating all of depravity of
| humankind into a coherent world view without falling into
| cognitive dissonance between the idealized and
| constructed world with an onslaught of information on the
| actual reality of it.
|
| It's sort of like looking into the Epstein files and
| having to decide one's reaction to them:
|
| - crushed by despair at the state of things leading to
| nihilism and depression
|
| - deciding to ignore it all, and continuing to go on
| about one's life without integrating it
|
| - acceptance, normalization, and corruption
|
| - a secret fourth option that reaffirms you, using that
| news as fuel for whatever ends in the hope you can
| improve the world even if just a little bit, despite how
| ugly it is
|
| And so on.
| gleenn wrote:
| Raising children is hard but assuming everyone has to
| sacrifice their rights so your job is easier means everyone
| means everyone loses long term.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| I'm moving away from that line of thinking. We can discuss how
| poorly formulated this law is, and the implications for privacy
| of internet control bills, and the resulting eroding of our
| freedom of speech. It's correct to be suspicous of attempts to
| regulate the internet. But I'm becoming increasingly convinced
| that "for the sake of the children" such measures are
| necessary. The reality is that most kids these days have
| basically zero restrictions on internet exposure, and it's
| frying their brains[1]. Casual warnings from parents won't cut
| it. Not that they don't have the ultimate responsibility, but
| as in every other area of child rearing, they need help from
| the wider society they live in.
|
| [1] I'm not going to quote studies, but plenty exist. I think
| it's pretty self evident to everyone here how bad internet can
| be for the mental health even of adults, let alone children
| with developing minds.
| rocqua wrote:
| So the solution is effective parental controls. Government
| mandated age verification isn't parental control, and is
| unlikely to be very effective.
|
| That means making it possible for parents to actively block
| bad websites, and making that hard to circumvent.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| Hard disagree. I think the control should stay with the
| parents where it already is. They can decide whether or not
| to put protections in place or whether or not to hand them a
| device at all.
|
| We don't put protections on kids walking out the front door,
| and there's plenty of theoretical dangers there too. Let the
| parents educate their children.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| The evidence shows they don't have sufficient control.
| Parents these days clearly are unequal to the task, i'm
| passing no judgement just observing.
|
| >We don't put protections on kids walking out the front
| door
|
| My view is that we most certainly ban and/or heavily
| discourage children from entering certain places and
| talking to random strangers. There are many safeguards in
| the real world, there is simply not enough in the internet.
|
| I don't say this lightly. I am very firmly against the
| nanny state, and i feel equally strongly in parental
| rights. I've made comments in the past against these laws
| but i feel it's the only way forward. The only question
| that remains is how to best implement such policies to
| minimize the inevitable erosion of our privacy.
|
| I don't like it, but that's how it is.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| > The evidence shows they don't have sufficient control.
|
| What evidence is that? Who gets to say what's sufficient?
|
| Unless there is a high probability that an alleged lack
| of control will negatively other people than the family
| in question, I don't think it should be the government's
| business to police.
| RiverCrochet wrote:
| Recently in the U.S. news a parent was convicted of murder
| because they facilitated making weapons to their child who
| then committed a school shooting. They didn't give their
| child weapons and tell them to go do it, they just didn't
| keep them away. This is a good trend that I hope continues
| and will actually help prevent school shootings. Parents are
| responsible for their children. If children are frying their
| brains due to Internet exposure, similarly it's the parents
| fault, and they should be held liable for child abuse in the
| same manner as if they committed other negligence.
|
| Someone at school has parents who aren't watching their
| children and allowing them unrestricted Internet access? This
| is where the bounty-hunter private-right-of-action morality-
| police laws that seem to be gaining traction can be put to
| some actual good use instead of, for example, hunting down
| trans people in Kansas. If someone's child is showing other
| children inappropriate material because their parents are
| negligent, the other parents should be able to take those
| parents to court and recover damages if they can collect
| evidence. Once parents are fined for letting their children
| roam with an unrestricted Internet connection it'll stop
| pretty quick.
|
| > they need help from the wider society they live in.
|
| Help that is not material support (e.g. paying hospital
| bills, babysitting, etc.) is usually interference.
|
| > I think it's pretty self evident to everyone here how bad
| internet can be for the mental health even of adults
|
| Agreed, but I can handle myself on the internet (my parents
| did their job and I am also not a dog and know the difference
| between a screen and a real object), and shouldn't be tracked
| with verification nonsense because someone else can't.
| wao0uuno wrote:
| 4chan is probably one of the least brain damaging sites kids
| can go to these days. It has porn and stupid memes, true. But
| so does google if you turn the safe search off. It's the
| corporate run sites and services with ai powered
| recommendation engines that are the most problematic.
| Infinite scroll sites like reddit or tiktok are what really
| fucks up your brain. I used to frequent 4chan as a kid back
| in the day when it was truly a wild corner of the internet
| and I turned out just fine.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| I agree with you about infinite scroll. I don't know you so
| i couldn't possibly comment on your other claim...
| epolanski wrote:
| I don't remember who said it, but protecting children isn't the
| end goal, it's tracking adults.
| erelong wrote:
| "As they should"
| dijit wrote:
| The response from Ofcom doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
|
| If you are to _sell_ a toy _in_ the UK you must be a British
| company. (and must pay VAT and comply with British safety
| standards).
|
| If a consumer buys from overseas and imports a product then they
| do not have British consumer protections. Which is why so much
| aliexpress electrical stuff is dangerous (expecially USB
| chargers) yet it continues to be legally imported.
|
| Just, no british retailer would be allowed to carry it without
| getting a fine.
| tokyobreakfast wrote:
| The US CBP routinely intercepts "dangerous" products. I assume
| the Brits have the same.
|
| It's a wonder why AliExpress flies under the radar. I assume
| it's impossible to keep up with it all.
|
| The UK's comically over-engineered electrics are no match for
| some of these plug-in-and-die sketchy USB chargers from the Far
| East.
|
| DiodesGoneWild on YouTube does teardowns of many of these
| incredibly poorly constructed deathtraps.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Commenting on Europe has gotten really lax the last year or
| so. People kinda will just say whatever pops into their head
| and it's some drive-by claim that they haven't thought about
| for a second past it popping into their head, presumably
| because it's become normalized. (i.e. "but everyone knows
| Europe goes too far")
|
| Sometimes it self resolves - as you contributed here, yes,
| countries limit and interfere and fine other countries
| businesses, all the time!
|
| I don't know what yours means though. What electrics are made
| in the UK? How are they over engineered?
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| I think they mean the fact that UK plug sockets are
| earthed, and contain a mechanism that prevents you from
| shorting live and neutral with a bent fork, even though
| those safety mechanisms are rarely the last line of defence
| (hence "over-engineered"... you can probably tell that I
| disagree with that assessment).
| strideashort wrote:
| And by extension, the UK is free to implement His Majesty's
| Greatest Firewall of the UK should they wish to control what
| is imported.
| mosura wrote:
| This whole episode is a charade to do exactly that while
| claiming they are morally superior to China because the UK
| does it "for the children" while China does it because they
| are just evil authoritarians.
|
| For Tiananmen Square substitute Rape Gangs.
| cs02rm0 wrote:
| I don't know why this is being downvoted.
|
| It's depressingly true; it seems the UK really heading
| quickly towards a Great Firewall, they've been looking to
| control VPN use [1] and the top most read article on BBC
| News right now is yet another public sector cover up of
| children being sexually abused. [2]
|
| [1] https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-
| security/uk-govern...
|
| [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyzy0y20qlo
| ge96 wrote:
| I remember I bought some pills online one time (neutroopics
| type) they came from like India and were intercepted by
| customs/I got a letter. It's funny my roommate at the time
| bought em and didn't get intercepted so was odd.
|
| In hindsight it is dumb to buy random pills and take em.
| crtasm wrote:
| Is it correct to say the consumer is importing a product when
| it's aliexpress shipping it to them?
| reisse wrote:
| Unless AliExpress has a local entity, like they do in some
| countries, yes.
| john_strinlai wrote:
| yes, aliexpress would not be shipping it if the consumer did
| not order it.
| nvme0n1p1 wrote:
| Of course. What situation are you imagining where a country
| imports a product without the seller shipping the product to
| that country?
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| Particularly if AliExpress is paying local VAT and import
| taxes (or at least dealing with the import paperwork) or even
| less if it's from one of their local (UK/EU etc) warehouses
| freehorse wrote:
| They have initiated the transaction. It would be "shipping to
| them" if somebody is sending them something by their own
| volition.
| 3rodents wrote:
| That's not really true. The Ofcom representative said "not
| allowed" not "unable to". Even if cocaine is legal in my
| country, I'm "not allowed" to sell it to British consumers by
| the power of the British authorities. The British authorities
| may not have legal authority in my jurisdiction but they can
| take action in their own, including issuing penalties and
| stopping my deliveries at the border.
| oliwarner wrote:
| But if a Brit comes to your country and buys cocaine from
| you, in person, you wouldn't expect to be convicted as a
| dealer in the UK.
|
| Ofcom has a bad handle on web _requests_. Clients connect
| out. 4chan et al aren 't pushing their services in anyone in
| the UK.
| 3rodents wrote:
| If we want to base the argument on technical nuance, 4chan
| are sending their packets to the U.K. just as the cocaine
| dealer would be sending packets (of cocaine) to their
| buyers in the U.K.
| tyho wrote:
| 4chan send their packets to their ISP, not the UK.
| 3rodents wrote:
| The destination of the packet where it is sent, just as a
| toy sent from the U.S. to a customer in the U.K. is sent
| to the U.K. rather than the local Fedex store.
| strideashort wrote:
| not at all, 4chan only sends packets to their isp!
| 2postsperday wrote:
| I don't think this holds up, at least not with the "kids
| toys" example.
|
| Aliexpress only sends the toys to the Fedx or whatever
| shipping partners UK uses.
| Ajedi32 wrote:
| This isn't a physical product. A better analogy would be
| a phone call, initiated by someone in the UK to a foreign
| country.
| strideashort wrote:
| What if I send http request over snail mail? And they
| send me back printed http/html response?
|
| Is it "different" then?
|
| Being serious here.
| saaaaaam wrote:
| I think (but am not sure) that there are long established
| postal laws in most territories about sending "obscene"
| material through the mail. I think this was used to
| prosecute pornography publishers in earlier times. BUT
| you needed to (a) intercept mail and (b) have a good
| reason and (c) get a warrant to open (interfere with)
| that mail.
|
| Possessing pornography was a separate issue which may or
| may not be allowed. Typically (I think) authorities went
| after publishers not consumers - because they were easier
| targets to pin down.
|
| Which would seem to imply that if you're sending
| encrypted traffic at the request of a recipient the as a
| publisher of "obscene" material then unless you are
| delivering very clearly illegal content to a user then
| you should not prosecuted.
|
| I haven't got a single source for anything I'm saying, so
| I might be entirely wrong - I'm simply going off half-
| remembered barely-facts. So please do argue with me!
| oliwarner wrote:
| They're replying to an externally-established connection.
| The packets they're sending are going to a local router.
|
| If you posted cocaine from your cocaine-legal country to
| an address where it was illegal, and you followed all the
| regular customs labelling rules, I'm not sure you should
| be liable. And you shouldn't be extradited either. Even
| the UK demands that extradition offences would have been
| criminal had they been committed in the UK. Now I'm sure
| in practice, you'd find yourself in trouble immediately
| but I don't think it's fair.
|
| The ramifications of laws like this is everyone needs to
| be Geo-IP check every request, adhere to every local law.
| It's not the Internet we signed up for.
| estimator7292 wrote:
| The user mails you a box with a note that says "1kg of
| 4chan packets pls", and a prepaid return label _to an
| address local to you_. You put the packets in the box and
| kick it down the street to its "destination". Job done
| as far as you know.
|
| The place you sent the box then repacks it and mails it
| to the UK. Somehow the UK thinks that you and _only you_
| have broken the law.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Not actually how TCP/IP works though.
| mattmanser wrote:
| Not so clear cut though is it. For example, does 4chan use
| a CDN? And is that CDN on UK/EU soil, serving this content?
|
| Therefore they're actually transacting that business on
| UK/EU soil.
|
| Didn't the US use this argument to prosecute and extradite
| the Mega founder?
|
| I wonder if the UK/EU will reverse uno the US's stance and
| start extraditions on US CEOs.
| ronsor wrote:
| The US would likely not process those extraditions, and
| it would make trade and international relations worse for
| no real benefit.
| mattmanser wrote:
| Like random tariffs?
|
| Imagine this scenario, a major G7 country declares:
|
| All bytes sent to a computer on their soil count as a
| transaction on their soil.
|
| And the end client being on a VPN is not a defence UNLESS
| the website owner attempts to verify the user's identity.
|
| Immediately have to pay local taxes, conform to local
| laws.
|
| Unless you keep all your assets in the US and never fly
| abroad, our shady website operator is exposing them self
| to real risk of being snatched by police somewhere or
| having their assets seized.
|
| The only thing stopping that from happening is the trade
| agreements the Americans have put in place, the very
| trade agreements everyone's now looking at and thinking
| 'what are these really worth?'.
|
| Yeah, it's fantasy and it won't happend but it could.
|
| The internet is not free, it runs on sufferance of a
| bunch of governments and some, like China, already lock
| it down.
|
| The more America, who probably gains the most from it
| right now, plays with fire, the more risk something like
| this crazy scenario happens.
|
| Another more plausible scenario is countries simply start
| repealing safe harbor laws. End of
| YouTube/Facebook/Twitter/etc. in those countries
| overnight.
| ronsor wrote:
| This is basically a mutually assured destruction
| scenario.
|
| The US is not going to let all US companies get fined out
| of retaliation, so there would be more retaliation from
| the US against the EU, and everyone else. In the end
| everyone loses, except for China, which as you mentioned
| is not stupid enough to play these games and decided to
| simply pick a lane.
|
| China locks down the Internet and blocks foreign players
| (to varying levels of success). They don't reach overseas
| to prosecute foreign executives or fine Meta for not
| removing Party-critical content from Facebook. Of all the
| parties that could be involved in this censorship drama,
| China is somehow the most honest.
| mattmanser wrote:
| Like tariffs?
|
| The US are already playing this game. Can you not see
| that?
| buzer wrote:
| > Another more plausible scenario is countries simply
| start repealing safe harbor laws.
|
| It already happened via GDPR to some degree. CJEU ruled
| in December that platforms can qualify as controllers for
| personal data published in user-generated advertisement.
| The given reasoning was basically that the platform
| determined the means and the purposes of the processing.
|
| Due to that they can be liable for article 82 damages.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| Whereas the US are very happy to demand extradition when
| the shoe is on the other foot.
| otherme123 wrote:
| It is easier than that: in Germany for example swastikas
| are forbidden. But they don't prosecute or fine web pages
| served in other countries. Or books for that matter. In
| some countries communist symbology is prohibited, yet they
| don't fine US web pages for having them. And don't forget
| the Great Firewall: China blocks pages, and get along with
| some webs to tune what they serve. But you can publish
| Tiananmen massacre images in your european hosted web, and
| they don't fine you: it is their problem to limit access,
| and they understand it.
| wrongwrong111 wrote:
| This isn't strictly true, major magazines like Der
| Spiegel can use it for 'satire' or some such nonsense,
| it's basically at the whim of those in power as CJ
| Hopkins learned, his satirical use resulted in him being
| perversely punished, but state aligned magazines get a
| pass.
|
| EU doesn't believe in human rights or freedoms.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| Howard Marx was arrested in Spain and extradited to the US
| on RICO charges by the DEA for something like this. It
| seemed like extraterritorial action by the US when I read
| about it.
|
| But US=Good and Europe=Bad on hn
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > But US=Good and Europe=Bad on hn
|
| LOL, classic. Everyone thinks they are the one being
| picked on. Plenty of people would argue that what you say
| here is actually the polar opposite of what happens on
| HN.
| DevKoala wrote:
| That sounds so gross. Why do British people tolerate that?
| It's as if British people belong to their government.
| 3rodents wrote:
| The same principles apply around the world. The U.S.
| recently invaded a sovereign nation and abducted its
| democratically elected leader because that leader was
| ostensibly involved in shipping cocaine to the U.S.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_interventi
| o...
| ImJamal wrote:
| Maduro was not legitimately and democratically elected.
| 3rodents wrote:
| Potato potato. No less legitimate than Trump.
| ImJamal wrote:
| Trump was validly elected. He won the required number of
| electors in the electoral college in the 2016 and 2024
| elections.
|
| Maduro on the other hand...
| markdown wrote:
| Didn't Trump admit that Musk fixed it for him?
| ImJamal wrote:
| Trump was talking about how Elon campaigned for him for a
| month in Pennsylvania and said he knows all about the
| voting counting machines in Pennsylvania.
|
| Even if Musk did something in Pennsylvania, Trump still
| would have won the electoral college vote.
|
| I think the good faith argument is that Musk confirmed
| they were secure so that the election wasn't stolen from
| Trump. But frankly Musk is too much of an idiot to steal
| an election or make sure it is secure so I don't know how
| to take it...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| The only election for the president that matters is the
| electoral college. What the citizens are voting on is a
| referendum to choose the electors (and in some states it
| is not binding). You might try to argue that the
| referendum was rigged somehow, but rigging the electoral
| college voting is even less plausible.
| anvuong wrote:
| Saying Maduro was democratically elected was too rich.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| This argument is tiresome.
|
| You can be against freespeech restrictions in Britain and
| the 2024 Trump Administrations braindead military and
| foreign policy.
|
| If I attack either, I am not taking the people in the
| countries whose politicians make the decisions.
| drnick1 wrote:
| So what? The only reason the U.S. did this is because it
| can. What will the UK do when 4chan tells its online
| regulator to go suck a d***, send in James Bond?
| NullPrefix wrote:
| The term is called "Subject of The Crown"
| michaelt wrote:
| The people who think incest porn should be banned are loud
| and proud in their beliefs. They'll put up posters, tell
| their MPs, respond to surveys, and appear in political
| debates.
|
| The people who support incest porn are a lot less
| talkative.
|
| As such our windsock government with no strong beliefs does
| what the survey says is most popular.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| _The people who think incest porn should be banned are
| loud and proud in their beliefs. They'll put up posters,
| tell their MPs, respond to surveys, and appear in
| political debates.
|
| The people who support incest porn are a lot less
| talkative._
|
| I think there is an argument to made the pornography in
| general is harmful.
|
| But to single out one single type of porn strikes me
| as... very odd. Maybe politicians can list, explicitly,
| all the other porn genres they find acceptable or
| agreeable to them, as a kind of compare and contrast
| exercise.
| michaelt wrote:
| I chose incest because
| https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/pornography-sexual-
| relationshi...
|
| _> So-called "barely legal" pornography and content
| depicting sexual relationships between step-relatives are
| set to be banned amid efforts to regulate intimate image
| sharing._
|
| _> Peers agreed by a majority of one to ban videos and
| images depicting relationships that would not be allowed
| in real life._
|
| _> They also agreed by 142 votes to 140, majority two,
| to bring intimate pictures and videos of adults
| pretending to be children in line with similar images of
| real children._
|
| There's actually a 200+ page government review of
| pornography
| https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/creating-a-
| safer-...
| jimnotgym wrote:
| I guess you have to draw a line somewhere, if you are
| going to legislate against porn you are going to have to
| decide what is and what is not ok
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| What's especially silly is effectively deciding the
| legality based on the _dialog_.
| gzread wrote:
| Interesting - There was once a movement in Germany to
| criminalise bestiality, and the opposition to this
| movement were vocal enough to hold street marches for the
| right to fuck dogs. https://www.webpronews.com/zoophiles-
| march-on-berlin-to-dema...
| anigbrowl wrote:
| _It's as if British people belong to their government._
|
| Legally speaking, British people are subjects, not
| citizens.
| shellac wrote:
| Then somebody needs to let the government know, because
| the relevant 1981 act is "[a]n Act to make fresh
| provision about citizenship and nationality". In that
| 'British subjects' are a quite limited subset of
| citizens. Most British people are citizens, not subjects.
|
| https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/contents
| miohtama wrote:
| But are you allowed to post pictures of your cocaine on a
| website that is not in the UK?
| 3rodents wrote:
| You're even allowed to post photos of your cocaine on U.K.
| websites!
| miohtama wrote:
| It depends. If it causes anxiety to someone, it is
| illegal. Pictures of drugs could fall into this category.
|
| > Current law allows for restrictions on threatening or
| abusive words or behaviour intending or likely to cause
| harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the
| peace, sending another any article which is indecent or
| grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or
| anxiety,
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Ki
| ngd...
| 3rodents wrote:
| I don't wish to fall down the rabbit hole of trying to
| defend U.K. laws so I'll keep this short. You're being
| intellectually dishonest. That page does not back up your
| assertion. You have said "If it causes anxiety to
| someone, it is illegal" but the page says "intending or
| likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" which has
| a different meaning.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| This is a meaningless standard since anyone can claim
| they were alarmed or distressed and there's no way to
| invalidate such a subjective claim. I can say I'm alarmed
| by your comment, does that mean it's valid for Ofcom to
| fine you?
| 3rodents wrote:
| Again, that's not what the law states. The law is not
| broken when someone is alarmed or distressed by a
| comment. The law is broken if you post something that is
| "likely or intending to" which is not judged by the
| victim. If you walk into a police station in England and
| tell them that this comment on Hacker News alarmed and
| distressed you, it doesn't matter, it is up to the legal
| system to judge my intent, i.e: whether my comment was
| "likely to" or "intending to" cause alarm and distress.
|
| Whether you agree with the law or not, it is important to
| be accurate when discussing it. The U.S. vs. U.K. (not)
| free speech law discussion online so often seems to frame
| them as fundamentally different, but they are on the same
| spectrum. The go-to example of the limits of free speech
| in context of the U.S. legal system is "Shouting fire in
| a crowded theater". The U.K. laws are the same in
| principle but a little further along the spectrum.
| stinkbeetle wrote:
| That's a horrific law. Criticizing certain religions and
| institutions are likely to offend many people.
| Criticizing a politician or criminal or bureaucrat is
| quite likely to cause distress to them and their
| supporters.
|
| > The go-to example of the limits of free speech in
| context of the U.S. legal system is "Shouting fire in a
| crowded theater". The U.K. laws are the same in principle
| but a little further along the spectrum.
|
| They are completely different in principle. The principle
| in the US is preventing the inciting of violence or a
| situation that could cause physical injury to others. In
| the UK it has become about protecting feelings of people
| who could just choose to not read, listen, or get
| themselves worked up about it.
| 3rodents wrote:
| Like I said, it is a spectrum. You draw the line at
| physical violence, an entirely arbitrary line, whereas
| the U.K. goes further and continues to emotional
| violence.
|
| And before you argue that there is no such thing as
| emotional violence: do you agree that some emotional harm
| can be worse than some physical harm? I'd much rather be
| punched than subjected to the worst emotional trauma I've
| experienced in my life.
|
| > In the UK it has become about protecting feelings of
| people who could just choose to not read, listen, or get
| themselves worked up about it.
|
| I'm not going to defend U.K. laws but it is patently
| absurd to say something like this is in the context of a
| conversation about U.S. vs. U.K. free speech laws when
| the U.S. courts allow schools to ban certain books
| because of "protecting feelings of people who could just
| choose to not read, listen, or get themselves worked up
| about it". Heaven forbid a Florida student learns about
| homosexuality, won't anyone think of the parents?
| RobotToaster wrote:
| In theory you can still sue for a faulty product under UK
| consumer protection laws if it was sold by an international
| retailer, of course enforcement is "difficult".
| jimnotgym wrote:
| > yet it continues to be legally imported.
|
| I am not sure it is legal to import dangerous electrical
| equipment to the UK.
|
| It may be unenforced, that doesn't make it legal.
| josefritzishere wrote:
| The unpaywalled version on AOL https://www.aol.com/articles/us-
| messageboard-4chan-mocks-520...
| john_strinlai wrote:
| > _However, a lawyer representing the company - which has
| previously said it won 't pay such fines - has responded to the
| demand with an AI-generated cartoon image of a hamster._
|
| > _The latest image is not the first picture of a hamster lawyers
| for 4chan have sent in reply to Ofcom_
|
| amazing. same energy as the pirate bay telling dreamworks to
| sodomize themselves. i cant help but laugh at the absurdness of
| it.
| aydyn wrote:
| Unlike TPB founders who were convicted in 2009 because
| copyright infringement also violates swedish law, the 4chan
| lawyers are correct that they are breaking no U.S. law. 1A
| provides broad protections.
| uyzstvqs wrote:
| From last year:
|
| > Messages sent to 4chan's press email went unreturned. One of
| the two dozen or so alleged moderators purportedly exposed in
| the hack wrote back using their 4chan email address to say that
| the site had released a "video statement." The user then
| pointed Reuters to an unrelated, explicit four-minute video
| montage. A request for further information was followed by a
| link to a different video with similar content.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/notorious-i...
| fluoridation wrote:
| I really thought it was going to say that they sent them to
| Never Gonna Give You Up, but a shock video is about as funny.
| gorgoiler wrote:
| Meanwhile Google.com shows all manner of depravity if you click
| "safe search: off".
|
| I realize there's a carve out in the legislation for search
| engines but if the goal is to stop little Timmy finding pictures
| of an X being Yd up the Z then it is a resolute failure.
|
| The only thing that works with children is transparency and
| accountability, be that the school firewall or a ban on screen
| use in secret.
|
| _"screens where I can see 'em!"_
| internet2000 wrote:
| Let kids go to 4chan. I frequented it and turned out fine.
| throwpoaster wrote:
| The problem is you're getting downvoted by the people who
| didn't.
| akramachamarei wrote:
| Bold to assume downvoters vote on first-hand knowledge.
| patates wrote:
| I used to hang out there too. However, describing me as 'fine'
| would require a lengthy debate over definitions.
| abcde666777 wrote:
| Still do to be honest. Always a good place for a little
| catharsis.
| patates wrote:
| It would be marvelous if they used a drawing of a spider.
|
| https://27bslash6.com/overdue.html
| wnevets wrote:
| You mean the message board that collab-ed with Epstein? Delete
| them from the internet.
| ecshafer wrote:
| UK fining an American company for this is absurd. 4Chan isn't
| breaking any laws. You can make it illegal for your own citizens
| but you can't regulate a foreign business. UK citizens should
| fight for the right to free speech though.
| cyberclimb wrote:
| How about the EU imposing GDPR restrictions on non-eu
| companies?
| Valodim wrote:
| Depends on whether those businesses want to do business with
| the EU
| RadiozRadioz wrote:
| I think that's different because I have a positive personal
| opinion of the GDPR and a negative personal opinion about
| what the UK is doing. Therefore the GDPR is good and this is
| bad. It's really quite objective.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| You can hold a mirror up to HN, but you can't make them
| look.
| ceayo wrote:
| The GDPR is about _your_ data being handled overseas.
|
| OFCOM&co is about _overseas_ data going _to you_.
| ecshafer wrote:
| It should only affect companies that have a presence in
| Europe, as in an office or some entity.
| epolanski wrote:
| They only apply to your business _in Europe_.
|
| You don't need to apply gdpr when serving non European users.
| giobox wrote:
| While I agree it seems absurd, this is how the UK's unwritten
| constitution works - the UK Parliament is not restricted to
| legislating just for the territory of the UK. Of course it can
| only realistically enforce within UK borders, but it can pass
| whatever legislation it wishes.
|
| There is a famous quote regarding this nature of British
| parliamentary sovereignty that is taught to every law student
| in the UK: "If Parliament enacts that smoking in the streets of
| Paris is an offence, then it is an offence" - Ivor Jennings.
| fluoridation wrote:
| Doesn't it ridicule its own agencies to allow them to go
| after entities that they have no hope of policing? It's such
| an impotent gesture to do this.
| okanat wrote:
| This is false. You of course can regulate and fine a foreign
| business. That's how trade regulations work.
|
| The UK isn't going to get a cent from that but the leadership
| is banned from entering the UK for the foreseeable future.
|
| Doing this a lot as a country is how you achieve pariah status
| and losing a bunch of trade, though.
| chrisjj wrote:
| > the leadership is banned from entering the UK for the
| foreseeable future
|
| Not at all. But if they do enter, they might find difficulty
| leaving.
| wat10000 wrote:
| Trade regulations apply to the importer, which might also be
| the exporter if they have a local presence, but also may not
| be.
|
| If I buy something illegal off of AliExpress, the US
| government won't and can't do squat to the seller. If they
| decide to enforce the law, they'll go after me.
| kasperni wrote:
| How is this different than, for example, the US fining TikTok?
| https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-ftc-record-fine-childrens...
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Simply put: The US has the ability to enforce or to cause
| enough pain to cause self-enforcement </realpolitik>
| epolanski wrote:
| Which will ultimately push alienation towards US for good.
|
| Trump is merely a huge accelerator of an existing trend.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| People keep saying this and it a profound
| misunderstanding of how the world works.
|
| Nobody likes USA. Nor is that required. It is irrelevant.
| International politics do not run on emotions. As long as
| USA is capable of enforcing its will, USA's view will be
| _the_ one that matters. You may dislike it, but that is
| what it is.
| strictnein wrote:
| I mean, first and foremost, Tiktok has offices in the US and
| employees thousands of people here.
| nkrisc wrote:
| > but you can't regulate a foreign business.
|
| Sure they can. It's unlikely they can do anything about it
| though.
| epolanski wrote:
| > You can make it illegal for your own citizens but you can't
| regulate a foreign business
|
| The us does that regularly. There's thousands of companies that
| cannot do business with entities from countries like China or
| they can face criminal charges in US.
|
| A former company I had as a client, EU based SaaS faced this.
| DroneBetter wrote:
| > Last month Pornhub restricted access to its website in the UK,
| blaming the introduction of stricter age checks, and said its
| traffic had fallen by 77%.
|
| assumedly the rate of consumption hasn't dramatically changed, so
| the OSA's immediate result has been either the decentralisation
| of porn providers (towards those small enough to dodge the law
| for now and be less exacting) or the mass adoption of proxies; I
| assume the former is the path of least resistance
|
| this is notably the opposite of the feared outcome (which I
| suspect may be closer to the long-term effect) that the bar to
| meet the requirements would be so high (possibly involving hiring
| a lawyer) that smaller social/porn sites get regulated out of
| existence (see ie.
| https://lobste.rs/s/ukosa1/uk_users_lobsters_needs_your_help...)
| epolanski wrote:
| I'm Italian and can confirm that half of the major porn
| websites require age checks.
| aincodle wrote:
| Probably a significant part of this is people experiencing
| friction in trying to access this, realising that they don't
| actually need to consume pornography, and having this break the
| cycle of compulsion. Which is the most positive outcome really.
| guelo wrote:
| There's always people that say it's the parents responsibility to
| monitor their kids. But as a parent, you either give your kids
| full access to the internet or nothing. The fault lies with the
| OS companies Google, Microsoft, Apple. They do a terrible job
| with parental controls. They make it very hard to setup, they're
| confusing and hard to use plus they barely work. I think they
| just do it as a checkbox for marketing or regulatory purposes.
| That's where I'd like to see regulation.
| rstat1 wrote:
| OS makers should not be in the business of enforcing
| censorship. If you want to shield your children from the
| "horrors" of the internet either use proper parental control
| software, or don't allow access at all like you said until your
| kids are mature to understand what's going on
|
| The onus is on the parent to the be parent. Not the tech
| industry, and especially not the government.
| guelo wrote:
| Who are you to decide what should or should not be?
|
| "proper parental control software" doesn't exist for a lot of
| the platforms.
| rocqua wrote:
| If the solution is parental control software, that also puts
| onus on operating systems to present the means for such
| software to work properly. This does not mean the OS should
| censor, it might mean the OS offers a censorship interface.
|
| At least we seem to agree the solution lies with better tools
| for parents.
| Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote:
| The answer is a computer the child must sit down and use in
| front of the family. Steve Jobs ruined the world with the
| invention of the iPhone, and whoever else is responsible for
| the more generic smartphone. Now parents use one to quieten
| their children and governments use it to surveil us all.
| epolanski wrote:
| Why is giving kids access to the whole internet a problem?
|
| I'm a millennial, I had access to porn as a kid, that's 25
| years ago.
|
| What's the deal with it?
|
| The biggest issues are social media related, not by seeing how
| people exchange body fluids.
| chuckadams wrote:
| Amateurs. Russia has fined Google more than the GDP of the entire
| planet. Odds of collecting are about the same.
| chrisjj wrote:
| Odds of collecting some 4chan execs travelling abroad are a lot
| higher, though
| vorpalhex wrote:
| 4chan's lawyer, who has been engaging with this well since
| the beginning, has clearly advised his clients, who have no
| intent of ever going to the UK, to not go there. In addition,
| Ofcom does not have the ability to collect them through the
| EU itself. They must go to the UK.
|
| It already sounds like Ofcom is likely to lose lawsuits about
| this, as they do not have jurisdiction in the U.S., where
| 4chan is hosted.
| petcat wrote:
| > Ofcom is likely to lose lawsuits about this, as they do
| not have jurisdiction in the U.S.
|
| How would Ofcom even have a lawsuit to lose? Are they going
| to file it in the US? Of course not, USA courts will tell
| them to pound sand.
|
| They'll just advise the UK government to block 4chan
| nationwide. Which is really what they want to do anyway.
| freddydumont wrote:
| Ofcom doesn't really wanna block websites though, they
| want websites to either comply or block themselves, both
| of which legitimizing Ofcom's extraterritorial
| enforcement.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| I do not think 4chan has executives.
| chrisjj wrote:
| I think the fact 4chan instructed a lawyer shows it does.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| PS450k? - Quick, we must show we've done something.
|
| > or requiring Internet Service Providers to block a site in the
| UK.
|
| Ah, that's what they want.
| ceayo wrote:
| They probably don't even expect 4chan to pay up - they just
| want them gone.
| rjh29 wrote:
| Yeah. Nobody thinks they will pay the fine, it just shows non
| compliance.
| cubefox wrote:
| This part is somewhat surprising to me:
|
| > Data shows that nearly 80% of the top 100 pornography sites in
| the UK now have age checks in place. This means that on average,
| every day, over 7 million visitors from the UK are accessing
| pornography services that have deployed age assurance.
|
| I would have expected that most people would switch to other
| pornography sites that don't have age checks rather than doing an
| age check. But apparently that isn't the case. (Or their data is
| misleading. People in the UK who are using VPNs presumably can't
| be easily identified as British.)
| Scaled wrote:
| Yeah, that is ABSOLUTELY a lie.
|
| I'm not sure if I'm allowed to include links as a new user but
| Pornbiz posted an article showing AV lost them 90% of traffic.
| There's a BBC article where researchers found AV compliant
| sites were decimated on their top traffic ranking on
| Similarweb. And I working in the industry saw our traffic drop
| by 99.9% during our AV test.
|
| Users don't use VPN, they certainly don't upload ID... they
| just go to noncompliant sites. Don't believe UK government's
| gaslighting.
| rjh29 wrote:
| The first part is true but the second sentence seems dubious to
| me. Did they compute that from the previous visitor numbers or
| something?
| epolanski wrote:
| In Italy porn websites also require age verification now,
| lately everybody is complying.
| JamesTRexx wrote:
| 4chan doesn't need age checks, everyone knows there are only five
| year olds on it. :-p
| kps wrote:
| Those were FBI agents. Expect a knock on your door any time
| now.
| subscribed wrote:
| Twenty five years old :-p
| bauruine wrote:
| The Internet: Where the men are men, the women are men and the
| children are FBI agents.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| 4chan fighting for us all! Bravo.
| gadders wrote:
| If it wasn't for 4Chan, we might never have solved the Haruhi
| problem
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpermutation#Lower_bounds,...
|
| I used to go on a curated version of 4Chan via Telegram. Yes
| there is a lot of racism (although it flies in every direction,
| between every ethnicity you could imagine) but there is also (due
| to the anonymous nature) some genuinely interesting discussions.
| I remember one thread about aircraft carriers being of no use
| being debated by US and UK submarine officers.
|
| There are also some genuinely funny bits. There was a guy in
| Greece who had found out that as long as he never graduated, he
| could live a basic life for free at university. His nickname was
| Dormogenes.
| john_strinlai wrote:
| there is a great clickhole headline that your comment reminds
| me of
|
| _" Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great
| Point"_
|
| 4chan has produced some hilarious/interesting stuff, and they
| have also driven people to suicide. i suppose it is up to
| everyone individually to make the value judgement there.
| nvme0n1p1 wrote:
| Replace "4chan" with "humanity in general" and your statement
| still holds true.
| john_strinlai wrote:
| sure, yeah, the original quote was about a person instead
| of a website, so that makes sense.
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| I mean that's pretty vacuously true, since (the community
| of) "4chan" is a subset of (the total population of)
| "humanity in general," but it's a stronger and more
| interesting claim to make about the subculture in question.
|
| If anything, the person you were replying to was
| intentionally describing how 4chan is less dissimilar to
| humanity in general than its typical portrayal, so
| responding with a dismissal that that makes them just the
| same as everyone else is really just affirming their point.
| monegator wrote:
| It is the freedom that comes from being anonymous.
|
| To mock and ridicule, yes. to speak your mind, sure, But first
| and foremost to discuss between true equals, because you can
| only be judged by what you write, because the value you are
| bringing to the discussion comes from your words and not from
| your reputation as the real-world human you are.
|
| Being free to discuss controversial topics without having
| repercussion to your job or family (which is why doxxing was so
| frowned upon back then)
|
| Being free to do some stupid childish fun, just for laughs.
|
| Something we still had when it was just forums, even though we
| did have accounts they did not represent our whole persona, and
| we could be different people on different platform.
|
| Something that was almost lost for good when normies invaded
| the internet due to social networks. It's not completely lost
| yet, and we must fight to keep it.
| AJRF wrote:
| This is all just theatre to justify a ban right?
| doublerabbit wrote:
| Yep. Just like most of my tax money, it's going to some clown-
| show just so they can get permission to ban a website where 69%
| of internet users how to skate through with use of a VPN.
|
| 4chan creates another TLD on another IP, just like TPB and the
| whole show starts again.
|
| Instead of, why don't we. The UK government.
| VladVladikoff wrote:
| The letter sent by the lawyer in response:
| https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HDwtXYaWAAA-u0l?format=jpg&name=...
| kimixa wrote:
| People here seem to be thinking this a UK/Europe-specific
| phenomenon, but there's plenty of examples of the US "seizing"
| sites that were never hosted in the USA either, and even put
| pressure on countries to extradite people involved even if they
| never broke any laws in the country they're living in.
|
| One I remember was a site hosting streams of the 2022 football
| world cup. Or a number of Iranian-affiliated news sites just last
| year. Or offshore gambling websites in 2021.
|
| People going "Those Crazy Brits! Thank God That'll Never Happen
| Here!" seem pretty ill-informed.
| petcat wrote:
| USA doesn't block websites. The FBI will seize domains after
| some judicial review and a court order. That's about it.
| aaomidi wrote:
| And you can use cctlds to bypass this too
| ronsor wrote:
| Yes. Hollywood is mad, but piracy sites are still up and
| unblocked. Book publishers are mad, but Anna's Archive
| persists on CCTLDs.
|
| The US by and large doesn't censor websites even if the
| content is illegal in the US. They'll get a warrant and
| seize servers or domains if it's in the country, or maybe
| poke international law enforcement for cooperation, but it
| doesn't really extend beyond that.
| kimixa wrote:
| Yes, you've just described one method the US authorities use
| to block websites.
|
| They also force ISPs to block IPs [0].
|
| I feel trying to say that's not "blocking websites" is
| playing games with words, and the results are functionally
| the same to the "average" user.
|
| The fact that the US effectively claim juristiction over the
| root DNS system is a more a geopolitical power thing rather
| than a legal restriction.
|
| [0] https://torrentfreak.com/us-court-orders-every-isp-in-
| the-un...
| themafia wrote:
| A court issued that ruling. Not an administrative agency.
| Pretty big difference.
| ascorbic wrote:
| The US arrested and imprisoned the bosses of multiple UK-
| based gambling sites that were not only legal in the UK -
| they were listed on the London Stock Exchange.
| petcat wrote:
| "You're taking bets from U.S. customers - you're violating
| U.S. law"
|
| This is different than 4chan allowing UK viewers to access
| the website at all.
| soco wrote:
| I think people here are also more fond of 4chan than the
| average citizen, and also in general rather fond of
| technological freedom of anything. Makes sense, being players
| basically in the team about to get a red card. Like it or not,
| the global internet became a convenient way to skirt local laws
| and I don't see any reason why exempting something in one place
| only because it originated in some other place. Is now
| enforcing a law "the CCP way"? Should internet be kept lawless
| only because... internet?
| pixl97 wrote:
| Yes it should, there is no global law, and hell forbid there
| ever should be.
|
| It's fucking stupid that an American site that is afforded
| free speech protection in its own country has to deal with
| the UK acting like a tyrant.
| greycol wrote:
| Of course, because they're not proposing "apply our laws in
| our country" they are proposing "apply our laws in another
| country". If you want to enforce this law you need to do it
| the CCP way (punish _your_ ISPs for alllowing it into the
| country and monitor _your_ citizens for accessing it) because
| you don 't have the jurisdiction to enforce it otherwise.
| Let's not forget how many UK criminals have made fun of Kim
| Jong Un's haircut and are getting away with it because the UK
| is such a lawless place that doesn't enforce DPRK law.
| jxdxbx wrote:
| I am hardy a fan of these processes but they are not
| "extraterritorial" in the same way, since the registrars were
| generally US-based.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Then why doesn't the US seize the domains of the Iranian
| government? They should be able to just seize every .ir domain,
| if your accusation is correct. The fact is it isn't. It _looks_
| that way because most people blindly choose .com without
| thinking about what country the TLD registry is located in.
| epolanski wrote:
| I have worked for a company that was threatened by the US to
| not offer services to several countries or face criminal
| charges in the US. I'm talking about a saas nothing strange.
|
| We were too small and bent, also US customers were 30% of the
| total which made it a non choice.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Europeans are following the wrong path on regulating the
| internet. Instead of calling it internet safety and annoy people,
| they should just make those services and the people running them
| liable for the damages.
|
| The same goes for the freedom of speech. Europeans should make it
| legal guarantee instead of trying to build walls around speech.
| So when X or 4Chan etc deletes a post, it may lead to freedom of
| speech fines if deletion wasn't justified. Tha same for the
| algorithm, if a post that doesn't break the rules is
| discriminated by the algorithm, a hefty fine should apply.
|
| Suddenly we will have companies that keep their business clean
| and no claim for moral high ground.
| LaurensBER wrote:
| I agree but you have to understand that a lot of European
| (leaders) still have WW2 in the back of their head.
|
| For them there're far worse things than giving up some
| freedoms.
|
| One can agree or disagree with this but Europe's actions are
| far more understandable if you see where they're coming from.
|
| From what it's worth, the younger generation doesn't seem to
| see this the same way so whatever censure Europe introduces
| today will most likely be temporary.
| mrtksn wrote:
| It's very weird, all these online laws and regulations seems
| like its an attempt to reduce the cost of policing by making
| the platforms a police force and I don't like that. If nazis
| gather on a platform, go get them or keep eye on them. It's
| even better than pretending that there are no nazis because
| you were able to silence them. Known cunts are much easier to
| deal with than cunts undercover, seriously why push people
| undercover? Let them speak, if that speech increases their
| numbers then you must work on your speech.
| abletonlive wrote:
| > One can agree or disagree with this but Europe's actions
| are far more understandable if you see where they're coming
| from.
|
| I think you're falsely attributing this to WW2. Free speech
| is simply just not part of European culture in the way that
| it is a part of american culture. The ideal of "free speech"
| regardless of how well that ideal is implemented in practice
| is something that is much more instilled in US culture than
| European culture.
|
| They simply do not give a shit the same way that the US
| claims it gives a shit about free speech. To them its an
| afterthought. Nothing to do with WW2 and the trauma of it.
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| _I agree but you have to understand that a lot of European
| (leaders) still have WW2 in the back of their head._
|
| Then they do not understand how or why WWII started. Few
| people are really interested or care about this - it's
| treated more as a kind of Aesopian Fable than a historical
| event.
|
| I am more cynical than you however, I suspect the Eurocrats
| who use WWII as a censorship justification know full well it
| has nothing to do with WWII.
| jmkni wrote:
| Getting flashbacks to the letters the Pirate Bay used to send
| lawyers
|
| https://www.scribd.com/document/117922444/the-pirate-bay-res...
|
| I'm pretty sure in one they responded saying their lawyer was
| alseep in a ditch and would reply when he woke up lol
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Ofcom has today fined 4chan PS450k for not having age checks in
| place_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47442838
| miohtama wrote:
| Germany tried earlier to fine American companies for online posts
| using a law called "NetzDG".
|
| Gab refused to pay the fine, and it was over.
|
| > The enforcement notice itself highlights the structural
| tension. Despite acknowledging Gab's US address, the German
| government asserts authority to pursue collection, including
| formal enforcement proceedings, without identifying any German
| subsidiary or office.
|
| > The payment instructions route funds directly to the German
| federal treasury, showing that the action is punitive rather than
| remedial.
|
| > Germany's approach also reveals the paper trail behind modern
| censorship enforcement. The fine stems not from a specific post
| or statement, but from alleged failure to comply with aspects of
| NetzDG. That procedural hook enables broader regulatory reach,
| transforming administrative requirements into a mechanism for
| speech governance.
|
| https://reclaimthenet.org/gab-refuses-to-pay-germanys-fine-c...
| EmbarrassedHelp wrote:
| Ofcom is currently threatening a Canadian forum that exists to
| help people with depression. Ofcom claims that geoblocking
| blocking the UK is "insufficient":
|
| > I've also gone back to Ofcom explicitly telling them the UK was
| now geoblocked (twice now) and I received a response that this
| was insufficient.
|
| Source:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1rk690v/i_ru...
|
| Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally.
| swarnie wrote:
| After bending over backwards for US media companies in the
| 2000s they thought it went both ways, turns out it doesn't.
|
| Oh well, the uncensored web from my NL VPN still looks the
| same.
| NullPrefix wrote:
| NL VPNs will bend the knee to EU regulation
| swarnie wrote:
| One click its Algeria, or Singapore, or Canada.
|
| We can move much faster then they can legislate.
| Spivak wrote:
| Well they technically do, parliamentary sovereignty means that
| the UK can, "legislate to ban smoking on the streets of Paris."
| There are no limits to what laws they can write, even ones that
| are out of their jurisdiction, absurd, or unenforceable.
| markdown wrote:
| The U.S. asserts the right to prosecute anyone, anywhere, who
| provides material support to any group they label as a
| terrorist organization.
|
| Not only is this enforceable, it has been enforced, and
| people have been assassinated without charge for this crime.
| 15155 wrote:
| It helps when you spend trillions annually on your
| military. Might makes right.
| XorNot wrote:
| Russia spends a lot less and routinely assassinates
| foreign critics. India has targeted overseas critics as
| well.
|
| The size of ones military expenditure does not determine
| whether a foreign government can kill you, specifically.
| diego_sandoval wrote:
| I think anyone running a website should avoid visiting the UK
| from now on.
| throwawaytea wrote:
| A gf asked to go on a trip to England/Ireland and I told her
| I will go to Brazil or Colombia before I go to the UK. Im not
| going to risk getting in trouble because I made a post online
| or discussed immigration or trans people in the wrong way
| according to them.
| edwcross wrote:
| In those countries, you'll probably have more to fear for
| your physical security from non-governmental threats than
| the other way around.
|
| But given the increasingly dystopian state of many
| countries worldwide, you may also encounter difficulties
| related to administrative burden and systems with not
| enough human oversight and override for exceptional
| situations.
| specproc wrote:
| No chance I'd go to America, as they definitely check that
| sort of thing at the border now.
|
| Not sure how often that happens coming to the UK, yet.
| throwawaytea wrote:
| It happens to citizens of the UK everyday, so I'm not
| really into finding out how tourists are treated.
| 2postsperday wrote:
| The only thing worse than being locked up in jail in your
| country for saying stuff online is being locked up in
| jail in another country.
|
| I do not want to visit the UK. I do not want to visit the
| US after they require me to hand over social media
| account passwords.
| patrickmcnamara wrote:
| What is the HN way to say "touch grass"?
| pessimizer wrote:
| Not to say it, but instead to choose to say something
| both interesting and directly responsive to the comment
| you're replying to.
| Leynos wrote:
| Okay, here goes. You can tell when someone is acting in
| bad faith when they talk about a law that has been in
| force and enforced since the 1960s is something new.
|
| Of course, "touch grass" works just as well.
| Reason077 wrote:
| > _" Im not going to risk getting in trouble because I made
| a post online or discussed immigration or trans people in
| the wrong way according to them."_
|
| This is a mis-truth which has been spread by Joe Rogan and
| his ilk. Political speech is very much protected in UK law.
| You won't get in "trouble" if you make posts against
| immigration or trans people. J.K. Rowling and Ricky Gervais
| certainly haven't been locked up.
|
| Yes, there have been cases, such as the infamous Cowley
| Hill School case where Hertfordshire police arrested a
| couple over their posts in a school WhatsApp group.
| However, such arrests are illegal and in that case the
| police had to apologise and pay compensation.
|
| What _will_ get you in trouble in the UK is threatening
| violence against people or posting hate speech that
| encourages others to do so. But this is also true in the
| USA and in most countries.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > You won't get in "trouble" if you make posts against
| immigration or trans people.
|
| Not to say anyone would actually get in trouble for just
| some opinion posts, but I don't know why you went with
| "against" here, I think "for" is the more likely one to
| make the current UK (or US) government upset.
| TeapotNotKettle wrote:
| "Burn old fella burn", felt like political speech - but
| that didn't work out so well.
| tim333 wrote:
| The UK I don't think has arrested anyone for running a
| website.
| Hamuko wrote:
| I don't think it's a great argument considering that the
| law in question is the Online Safety Act 2023.
| jdkee wrote:
| The police in the UK have arrested more than 12,000
| citizens for online speech.
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2025/09/09/people-
| a...
| bargainbin wrote:
| Preposterous suggestion. The capability for OFCOM to know who
| is personally responsible for a website in a foreign
| territory is limited at best. We're not a police state like
| the US, there'll be no action unless there is irrefutable
| proof, of which they'll have none and can acquire none unless
| the person readily admits it.
|
| Also, if they were to arrest a foreign national and attempt
| to charge them for their actions in a foreign nation, it
| would be a diplomatic disaster, something we generally avoid.
|
| This is a typical brutish implementation of a typically ill
| thought out British law - It uses intimidation and suggestion
| to coerce people into conforming but it's ultimately
| toothless.
|
| To anyone hosting a website, continue to geoblock us, exile
| us entirely and ridicule this behaviour. No one in their
| right mind voted for this, it's nightmarish government
| overreach that we need to repeal as soon as possible.
| varispeed wrote:
| These departments are full of delusional maniacs, that at home
| are doormats and nobodies, but once they cross the floor of the
| department, they think they own the world. They sit by the desk
| and think who's day they can ruin today.
|
| Meanwhile the UK is gnawed by corruption, scams and whatnot,
| yet there is no one able to do anything about. But harassing
| some Canadian forum? First to serve!
| croes wrote:
| > Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally.
|
| They learned from the US
| 15155 wrote:
| The United Kingdom's once-relevant hegemony existed centuries
| before the United States.
| croes wrote:
| There is the difference.
|
| They made the whole world British so the British laws
| applied everywhere.
| agilob wrote:
| >Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally.
|
| Just 2 months ago Italy tried to ban domains globally too
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46555760
| roysting wrote:
| It's really kind of unfortunate that people ignore the fact
| that the ruling powers seem to always follow the same MO, yet
| everyone falls for it over and over again; first they go
| after the dregs that they've made beyond the pale for pearl
| clutching polite company, e.g., I think over a year ago, when
| the German government first went after Gab followed by
| something like, if not Ofcom itself.
|
| I don't recall the outcome exact outcome or what has happened
| since, but I think Gab basically told them off in a similar
| way, i.e., "ummmm, this is America, silly Europeans" and may
| have even submitted the foreign demand letters to Congress
| and for whatever reason may have still geo-blocked the UK and
| at the same time has blocked VPN IPs because they found it
| effective at blocking pornography and the bad actors who
| emanated from a certain country. The effect though is that
| they've effectively barred the UK from participating in free
| speech in America if that's still the current state of
| things. I suspect that is exactly what the tyrannical forces
| have worked out too, and which is why they're demanding
| something other than just geo-blocking.
|
| If you agree to VPN blocking, you effectively enforce the
| geo-block as well as unmasking users for five-eye de facto
| domestic surveillance. But they only came after those
| horrible horrible "Nazis" that insist on their rights to free
| speech, "...and I did not speak out."
|
| The point is, regardless of what one thinks of Gab, the
| powerful and tyrannical elements clearly go after those the
| mainstream population hates due to the two minutes of hate,
| so to say, which people have been conditioned to loathe;
| where the tyrants refine their tactics and the strategy, and
| practice and normalize the process for when they are ready to
| go after the mainstream populace... which seems to be
| approaching. And then the mainstream people are shocked and
| surprised because they believe it all came out of nowhere,
| when they just ignored it all along.
|
| This of course is not just limited to the digital realm, the
| tyrannical forces will always come after scapegoats, and the
| exposed and low hanging fruit, or and even deliberately cause
| the "troublemakers" to identify themselves so they can be
| tracked, monitored, and picked off if need be.
|
| This is not new, and people seem to fall for the same tricks
| over and over and over.
| bethekidyouwant wrote:
| "Vpn" blocking is a game pf cat and mouse, not an absolute
| .
| 15155 wrote:
| > Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally.
|
| The cries of a long-since-dead empire slowly fading into
| geopolitical irrelevance.
| observationist wrote:
| Not so slowly. They've gone from a more or less respectable
| smaller country to more or less politically, culturally, and
| economically irrelevant in less than 10 years. I even
| question whether it's rational to allow them to have nukes;
| they should probably be required to give them up to some
| country that has a shot at remaining a stable and predictable
| geopolitical entity over the next century.
| bromuk wrote:
| I mean the US have nukes and they're hardly stable and
| predictable.
|
| Allow them to have nukes, who are you lol
| observationist wrote:
| >who are you lol
|
| The US.
|
| Who else on the planet would have the effective power to
| possibly even think about who should and shouldn't have
| them, while plausibly being able to do anything about it?
| PUSH_AX wrote:
| Probably a country that has done so in the past, like the
| UK...
| philipov wrote:
| > some country that has a shot at remaining a stable and
| predictable geopolitical entity over the next century.
|
| Which country do you believe could possibly qualify for
| such an impossible task?
| nemomarx wrote:
| China's probably making the best argument for it now.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| One or more of the Nordics.
| drnick1 wrote:
| The UK has been declining for at least 50 years, it isn't a
| new phenomenon. It's only really relevant culturally; after
| all EU countries are forced to speak English or they
| wouldn't be able to communicate, even after the UK's
| departure from the Union and some unsuccessful attempts at
| increasing the place of French.
| consp wrote:
| While it's the defacto public language (and the one of
| the required languages). These days all EU communication
| is done though either the translation service or
| governmental variants of it making it pretty much
| irrelevant due to most official languages being served
| (there seem to be some exceptions but they are minor in
| the grand scheme of things).
| urbandw311er wrote:
| It's kind of sad to read your arrogant and xenophobic
| rantings. I'm not sure you're really down for the sort of
| inclusive and open minded discussion that normally takes
| place here.
| nephihaha wrote:
| Long dead? Within living memory. Britain still has colonies
| with millions of people in them.
| tredre3 wrote:
| I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of a screaming
| eagle spreading freedom.
| behringer wrote:
| If it's insufficient then there's no risk of removing the
| geoblocking then.
| 9dev wrote:
| > Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally.
|
| Curious time to complain about the UK doing this (*points
| broadly eastwards*)
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| Good. These ridiculous extraterritorial laws should be broken and
| mocked at every opportunity.
| parliament32 wrote:
| In the midst of the 4chan v. Ofcom civil suit? Interesting.
|
| https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71209929/4chan-communit...
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| We really need a Statesternet. People will be able to verify
| their identity to buy a special device which will encrypt/decrypt
| their traffic, and people in the UK will not be able to purchase
| one. The device will use GPS to confirm that it's only operating
| in the US.
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| UK is recently going more and more towards censorship and thought
| control, but this is only my private but honest opinion
| RobRivera wrote:
| Hiroshimoot must be sweating bullets
| LightBug1 wrote:
| Anyone want to sell/explain 4chan for me?
|
| I haven't thought about it at all since the last time I looked
| there maybe about 2 years ago.
|
| Still looks shit.
|
| What's the enduring appeal?
| wao0uuno wrote:
| Modern 4chan is just a shadow of its former self. Back in the
| day it was a popular place on the internet where anyone could
| just go to and post. No verification, no captchas, minimal
| moderation and rules. This led mostly to chaos and illegal
| content being posted but sometimes that true freedom of speech
| and forced equality bred original, interesting discussion and
| hilarious memes. It was a place without points, nicknames,
| profiles where people could share their honest thoughts on any
| topic. Truly beautiful corner of the internet that I'll always
| remember fondly.
|
| These days everything on the internet is controlled and
| monitored. Modern 4chan is hosted on cloudflare and is without
| any doubt "pozzed". Any illusion of real anonymity has
| dissolved a long time ago. Lots of bots there too. You missed
| it by at least 15 years.
| epolanski wrote:
| Can't UK simply blacklist 4chan?
| themafia wrote:
| No this is about using children as pawns, not actually, like,
| protecting them or anything.
| avadodin wrote:
| You have been convicted in absentia of double plus ungood crime
| think
|
| Please report to the closest police station
|
| Miniluv
| flenserboy wrote:
| "safety breaches" is a deeply Orwellian term.
| demorro wrote:
| As a Brit this is so embarrassing I wish they would stop.
|
| Doesn't really seem like there's an anti-authoritarian party
| available to us either.
| jongjong wrote:
| I mean the 4chan lawyer makes a good point.
|
| If you think about it, it's the Internet Service Providers in the
| UK who choose choose to allow this US content into the UK. Why go
| after 4chan?
|
| The ISPs could just shut down the BGP protocol and set up their
| own ICANN alternative with their own DNS system which is
| completely separate from the US one. So it's the UK government's
| choice to allow this content to the UK, not 4chan's. Or they
| could just put up a China-style great firewall.
| jgilias wrote:
| Getting more convinced day by day that bureaucrats of all
| countries are all pretty dense.
| nvarsj wrote:
| I don't really understand what is going on with Ofcom.
|
| This nonsense, and yet they allow GBNews to keep spewing
| propaganda and violate almost all broadcast standards that Ofcom
| is supposed to enforce.
| chocoboaus3 wrote:
| its amazing how little governments understand sovreignty and
| borders these days
|
| they have literally no power over things outside their own land
| borders and people are right to tell them to piss off.
| sackfield wrote:
| It feels more and more embarrassing as time goes by to tell
| people I am British.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-19 23:00 UTC)