Rendered at 04:08:34 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
EmbarrassedHelp 8 hours ago [-]
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.
Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally.
15155 7 hours ago [-]
> Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally.
The cries of a long-since-dead empire slowly fading into geopolitical irrelevance.
onetimeusename 4 hours ago [-]
I didn't see it that way. It seems like NGOs and IGOs have been pushing for internet restrictions for a long time. There has suddenly been a push for age restrictions allegedly because of abuse material. This happens annually. Some international group claims there needs to be something draconian abolishing encryption, or some other privacy invading measure to stop child abuse and help security. The laws are 1000s of pages and appear out of nowhere and we're expected to believe it's organic and that politicians are deeply concerned about the issue.
So it really wouldn't be hard for the same legal framework that restricts age to happen in the US. It just takes compliance on our part. The UK is just one tentacle of the legal bureaucracy. It wouldn't surprise me if a bill appears called the Online Child Safey Act or something like that soon and it happens to coincide with a bunch of issues Ofcom raises in this lawsuit.
toofy 3 hours ago [-]
> It seems like NGOs and IGOs have been pushing for internet restrictions for a long time. There has suddenly been a push for age restrictions allegedly because of abuse material. This happens annually.
we’re seeing some good evidence the most recent pushes were secretly funded and directly written by meta, the corporation. [0][1]
according to the link in there,
> Rep. Kim Carver (R-Bossier City), the sponsor of Louisiana's HB-570, publicly confirmed that a Meta lobbyist brought the legislative language directly to her.
and they’ve put as much as 2 billion dollars into it. and yes, that’s billion, with a B.
corporations openai, meta, and google were absolutely backing the push for the age verification bill in california and ohio. [2][3][4]
Reading the original research and stripping away the motives implied by the bot, the data is aligned with another interpretation. Namely that Meta is going with the flow and using the opportunity to push for regulation that impact its interests less, while affecting its competitors more.
The original research is riddled with baked in conclusions, and has not been verified independently. Its also mostly LLM generated.
observationist 6 hours ago [-]
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.
joegibbs 5 hours ago [-]
Their cultural decline seems to have definitely accelerated recently. Even 10-15 years ago it seemed like there was so much more British influence in the media, a lot more films and television set in Britain. It seems like the London Olympics were a kind of last hurrah. Even here in Australia which has always historically had more British influence than anywhere else it's receded - there's very little focus on their internal politics, much more on the politics and culture of the United States, even more than you'd expect given the population difference.
heavyset_go 11 minutes ago [-]
It's deliberate isolationism, the same isolationism that drove Brexit
eucyclos 3 hours ago [-]
The genteel class turning on jk Rowling was definitely a Waterloo moment in British cultural strength.
matheusmoreira 2 hours ago [-]
It's irrational to allow anyone other than yourself to have nukes. That's the whole point of having them, and the reason why nobody is going to bother asking for permission. No country with any self respect wants to end up becoming another Venezuela.
harry8 35 minutes ago [-]
Did it work out better for North Korea or Iran?
matheusmoreira 27 minutes ago [-]
North Korea is still standing and even got Trump to play diplomacy. Only reason Iran got attacked is the fact they didn't have nukes yet.
Venezuela showed everyone what happens when you're a toothless country. USA shows up at your door uninvited, fucks your shit up, takes your oil and kidnaps your president for good measure, just to tack on some extra humiliation.
Don't get me wrong, Maduro deserved an even worse fate than what he got. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. It's still a cautionary tale for nations worldwide. It can happen to you. China continues to erode the economic power of the USA. They could very well discover one day that their military might is all they have left. Who's to say they won't suddenly decide to capitalize on their advantage before it evaporates?
drnick1 6 hours ago [-]
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.
jacquesm 3 hours ago [-]
Not having the UK in the EU makes English a better choice, not a worse one. It was one of those things where the UK had a 'home court advantage'. This is one of the strangest fringe benefits and of course there were some countries that tried to jockey for position but fortunately that didn't go anywhere.
consp 6 hours ago [-]
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).
FuckButtons 2 hours ago [-]
The thing about an independent nuclear deterrent is that it’s completely irrelevant what anyone else thinks about you having one.
Daviey 1 hours ago [-]
"allow"? Under what authority and governance would you remove them?
philipov 6 hours ago [-]
> 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 6 hours ago [-]
China's probably making the best argument for it now.
gerdesj 4 hours ago [-]
China's wot?
ta9000 3 hours ago [-]
> Totalitarianism aside, I'm not sure about the stability either. Personally I suspect Xi Jinping's reign will end with some kind of bang, either an economic one or something relating to
That’s a pretty big aside.
fc417fc802 3 hours ago [-]
I don't personally like their government but at this point they certainly have the appearance of long term social and political stability. More than most western countries for the time being.
nozzlegear 2 hours ago [-]
> they certainly have the appearance of long term social and political stability
You could've said that exact same thing about the US just 10 years ago when Obama was president.
ungreased0675 1 hours ago [-]
China has a host of factors that make their current system very fragile. I doubt they make it five more years before turbulence hits.
fc417fc802 45 minutes ago [-]
I'd be interested to read about that if you have any particular pointers to resources to share.
andrewflnr 3 hours ago [-]
Totalitarianism aside, I'm not sure about the stability either. Personally I suspect Xi Jinping's reign will end with some kind of bang, either an economic one or something relating to invading Taiwan.
fc417fc802 3 hours ago [-]
A dramatic end to his reign doesn't have to imply social or political instability (though it certainly could).
nemomarx 3 hours ago [-]
Would the us currently defend Taiwan? I think they might get the chance to just take it, especially if we get another president like Trump in 28.
fc417fc802 3 hours ago [-]
If Japan became involved would the US then become embroiled?
peyton 1 hours ago [-]
Yes obviously. We would erase President Xi and his family as well. What are they going to do, cross the Pacific? Our total willingness to do is unconditional.
andrewflnr 5 hours ago [-]
One or more of the Nordics.
WastedCucumber 4 hours ago [-]
At first I took the comment about transferring nukes as a bit of a joke, but you make a fair point. Let Iceland have em!
fc417fc802 3 hours ago [-]
Greenland can make a competing bid on the basis of a pressing need.
jacquesm 3 hours ago [-]
That's one that I didn't have on my bingo card for 2026 but it is funny to contemplate.
gerdesj 4 hours ago [-]
So, Sweden.
andrewflnr 3 hours ago [-]
They're also starting to talk about a joint nuclear program.
morkalork 49 minutes ago [-]
As they should be
bromuk 6 hours ago [-]
I mean the US have nukes and they’re hardly stable and predictable.
Allow them to have nukes, who are you lol
marcus_holmes 52 minutes ago [-]
Given that the nukes that the UK has is Trident, which is a US system that the UK cannot use without US cooperation [0], it seems entirely appropriate that the USA gets to decide if the UK has nukes.
[0] Yes, the UK can fire them without US approval, but the actual hardware is maintained and supported by the USA, and they have to be shipped to the USA regularly for maintenance. If the USA decided that the UK should not have nukes, there's not a lot the UK could do about it, the Trident system would have to be scrapped entirely and replaced with some completely different system. Which the UK doesn't really have the capability to do and it would cost a fortune to acquire that capability.
Nursie 30 minutes ago [-]
That's only the delivery method, the warheads are UK-designed and built.
So yes, if the US withdrew support then the existing nuclear program would be pretty fucked for a while, but the US couldn't unilaterally de-nuclearise the UK.
observationist 6 hours ago [-]
>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?
inopinatus 2 hours ago [-]
Given how the situations w.r.t Ukraine & Iran escalated, the US is the only country that has specifically and publicly demonstrated it's inability on both counts.
We can't give Ukraine their nukes back because they were decommissioned (and they were rotting at the time), but there'd be no nation more deserving.
Corollary: no individual nation is able to shoulder such responsibilities.
k33n 1 hours ago [-]
The US has mostly recused itself from the Ukraine situation. Re: Iran, the US fully having its way with them.
dgroshev 33 minutes ago [-]
> recused itself
Surrendered.
PUSH_AX 6 hours ago [-]
Probably a country that has done so in the past, like the UK…
dgroshev 5 hours ago [-]
This is an entirely delusional twitter-brain take.
Despite its problems, the UK is still a sixth largest economy, a cultural powerhouse (how many Hollywood actors are British?), with a lot of soft power, a capable and currently renewed nuclear arsenal (Astraea and Dreadnought are on track), a globe-spanning network of alliances (from AUKUS to Japan deploying to the UK first time in their history to being one of the closest and most unwavering allies for Ukraine), and a constitutionally healthy and adaptive system of government (we just passed another constitutional change and it's not a big deal, we can just do that).
Frankly, this meme stinks of projection. Going from a shining city on a hill to a place where public executions by state backed paramilitaries are just another partisan talking point, that starts Special Military Operations with no plan or goal, that threatens to annex territory of its allies in about a year is an achievement. I guess projecting this free fall on the UK makes living through it more bearable.
ribosometronome 4 hours ago [-]
>Despite its problems, the UK is still a sixth largest economy, ... Going from a shining city on a hill to a place where public executions by state backed paramilitaries are just another partisan talking point, that starts Special Military Operations with no plan or goal, that threatens to annex territory of its allies in about a year is an achievement.
Why would you use the economy to defend the UK's status and then point to a bunch of non economy stuff to try to knock the US? The US is the largest and has been for awhile. Isn't that what mattered to you? Plus, pointing out that a bunch of prominent UK residents leave to participate in US industry hardly seems a point in favor of how well the UK is doing.
dukeyukey 2 hours ago [-]
They didn't put it very well but they're right that being the 6th largest economy, and likely to become the 5th or 4th quite soon puts a hole in the "economically irrelevant" accusation.
dgroshev 4 hours ago [-]
It's not "knocking the US", it's an example of the (likely, projected) decline. The size of the economy is an example of why "irrelevant" is delusional. Two different points.
The "prominent UK residents" don't "leave" the UK. Benedict Cumberbatch lives in London, despite constantly starring in Hollywood films. It's an example of the UK culturally punching way above its weight in proportion to its population.
ribosometronome 3 hours ago [-]
> it's an example of the (likely, projected) decline
Again, you just used the present size of a nation's economy to argue that a nation isn't in decline when someone was talking about the ongoing decline of a nations politics, economy, and culture. It seems odd to me you're able to, for other countries, understand that the present moment can be viewed with both historical and likely future context.
>The "prominent UK residents" don't "leave" the UK. Benedict Cumberbatch lives...
Plenty move, but that wasn't the point I think anyone was making. If I wanted to say they were moving to the US, I would have said that instead of "leave to participate in US industry". And all of that ignores that the original commenter was talking about the decline of British media rather than saying that they're aren't talented Brits. It's not like they they're saying the UK had a bunch of great actors ten years ago and they suddenly died. Them working in American industry rather than the UK producing it own is, I'm pretty sure, the sort of point the commenter you replied to was making.
dgroshev 34 minutes ago [-]
> more or less politically, culturally, and economically irrelevant
I feel like we're reading different posts.
marcus_holmes 45 minutes ago [-]
The UK used to be the 4th largest economy [0] so being 6th is still indicative of decline.
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.
magospietato 5 hours ago [-]
Living here the decline is tangible. And this is West Oxfordshire; not one of the poorer parts of the country.
An example in microcosm: a local village suffered road flooding due to failed maintenance of water pipes. Our rent-seeking privatized water company effected the minimum repair required by regulation.
The next section of old pipe burst almost immediately, flooding the road further for most of January, utterly destroying the surface, through the road base in many places. Even at a crawl it's difficult to avoid tyre damage.
Over a month later the water repairs were effected. Then shortly after some local roadwork notification signs were put up.
Those expecting repairs to the moonscaped road were disappointed: instead the relentless bureaucracy of British local government installed traffic calming measures on top of the broken road, as the work had already been booked and could not be stopped by any means as even basic roadworks lack any degree of dynamism in their execution.
All this still needs to be made right. These small scale failures will compound and compound until the entire state is drowned in the consequence of its incompetence.
robocat 1 hours ago [-]
> An example in microcosm: a local village suffered road flooding due to failed maintenance of water pipes
Your example only compares against the UK past.
It has zero relevancy because it says nothing about relative change against other countries.
Anecdotally for the USA, I went to New Orleans last year, and I was stunned at the rotting infrastructure. Coming from New Zealand, the USA seems to be trying to copy the trajectory of Argentina.
Then again, I see serious problems in my hometown (e.g. sewage treatment plant) and country (e.g. big problems with rail, ferry, air, electricity, 3 waters). Apart from the societal issues that it seems all countries are facing.
tjwebbnorfolk 29 minutes ago [-]
I was in New Orleans last year and everything looked brand new. The whole city was basically rebuilt 15 years ago.
robocat 16 minutes ago [-]
I know what a rebuilt city looks like, because I come from one. Hurricane Katrina was 2005. Christchurch Earthquake was 2011. In my opinion, my home town has recovered better and faster from destruction than New Orleans has.
I also live within a floodzone. There is a high probability I will learn how we deal with flooding in the future (different flooding - shallower and lacking the winds and hopefully better pre-planning for avoiding harm).
> everything looked brand new
Absolutely not, to me.
And the conversation is regarding infrastructure. A bunch of Christchurch infrastructure is brand new.
mbg721 7 minutes ago [-]
New Orleans in particular is highly variable in what you see, depending where you visit.
dgroshev 4 hours ago [-]
We need to recognise the difference between the GP rant and what you're describing. The austerity is undeniably still reverberating through the country. It will take years for this ship to turn around, although it is being turned around. For example, in just about a month we're getting European-style rents with the Renter's Rights Act, which is transformational. We can and should do better, and everyone can contribute to solving those issues, but after a decade of nothing the necessary changes are finally being implemented.
But the rant is entirely counterfactual. Britain is a very rich country with beautiful and recovering nature, a healthy and educated population, one of the more capable armies in Europe, a functioning deterrent, and a relatively healthy political system. We just got two new parties becoming credible threats to the "main" two (regardless of the parties' views, the political competition itself is a much healthier situation than the American duopoly)! We just abolished hereditary peers, which is a constitutional change (and it can just be done)! Below the everyday media noise, we're doing alright as a democracy.
wdutch 4 hours ago [-]
The UK is still a respected "brand" in most of the world despite what chronically online people say. British education is the most sought-after in many countries for example.
decremental 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
wolvoleo 4 hours ago [-]
I would normally agree but if you see Brexit and the kind of "people" that are getting ready to take over power (Reform UK), I do have to say I understand some of this sentiment.
RobotToaster 4 hours ago [-]
> 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.
I really hope this wasn't posted by an American....
cineticdaffodil 6 hours ago [-]
[dead]
nephihaha 6 hours ago [-]
Long dead? Within living memory. Britain still has colonies with millions of people in them.
stackghost 5 hours ago [-]
>Britain still has colonies with millions of people in them.
Britain does not have colonies. You might be thinking of the British overseas territory but the total population of those islands is less than 400,000
wolvoleo 4 hours ago [-]
A small colony doesn't count?
stackghost 2 hours ago [-]
They're not colonies. An overseas territory is not the same thing as a colony.
tredre3 6 hours ago [-]
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of a screaming eagle spreading freedom.
agilob 7 hours ago [-]
>Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally.
I don't get it. Shouldn't this be done at the ISP level? (Well, arguably it should not be done at all, but...)
Otherwise each company, everywhere in the world, no matter how small, has to follow the arbitrary demands of every nation state? How does that make any sense?
roysting 7 hours ago [-]
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.
andai 4 hours ago [-]
Yeah, it's the same way with using AI to scan private messages before they're encrypted.
Even if you agree that this should be done for the currently stated reasons, the precedent is horrifying.
To quote Snowden, we're building the infrastructure of mass surveillance. (And then hoping nobody's going to come along and use it.)
towledev 5 hours ago [-]
The fact that unsympathetic targets are the first to be targeted need not be viewed as strategic. Other targets would be defended, which is a reason not to target them. Unsympathetic targets lack defenses and are therefore most likely to be targeted, all other things being equal.
We grant fully that it’s a slippery slope, ofc. But is the end of the slope in mind at the outset? Maybe, but not certainly.
roysting 2 hours ago [-]
I don't think it needs to be seen as "strategic", beyond that most effective people start with a proof of concept that is low risk. You are right, being pragmatic is surely the primary motivation to follow that pattern, but that too is inherently strategic. The strategy being; plan, test deploy the process, measure responses, adjust, redeploy, etc. We know this inherently strategic process even if it is a bit different outside of software development.
bethekidyouwant 5 hours ago [-]
“Vpn” blocking is a game pf cat and mouse, not an absolute .
tw04 3 hours ago [-]
The US thinks their laws apply globally so why wouldn’t Europe expect the same. We will be dealing with the fallout of Venezuela for generations.
culopatin 3 hours ago [-]
So because a window is broken in the neighborhood you go out and smash your own?
diego_sandoval 8 hours ago [-]
I think anyone running a website should avoid visiting the UK from now on.
tim333 7 hours ago [-]
The UK I don't think has arrested anyone for running a website.
Hamuko 7 hours ago [-]
I don't think it's a great argument considering that the law in question is the Online Safety Act 2023.
jdkee 5 hours ago [-]
The police in the UK have arrested more than 12,000 citizens for online speech.
Looking through that article, one of the examples is "The wife of a conservative politician was sentenced to 31 months in prison for what police said was an unacceptable post."
"The wife of a Conservative councillor has been jailed for 31 months after calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire."
This is pretty clear incitement to violence.
The UK has problems, but it's not very useful to throw all of these cases together to make a big number, it really rather undermines the point.
dukeyukey 2 hours ago [-]
Why? I run a few.
jwlake 4 hours ago [-]
Anyone owning 4chan should be very anonymous and only operate in a very friendly jurisdiction. Normal websites, no one cares.
bargainbin 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
badc0ffee 4 hours ago [-]
> 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.
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.
Reason077 6 hours ago [-]
> "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.
troad 5 hours ago [-]
> Political speech is very much protected in UK law
With "protected political speech" being defined as which flavour of the established, incompetent elite you prefer this year.
People have been arrested in the UK for holding blank signs within vicinity of Palestine marches. People have been arrested over protesting Charles' coronation. To say nothing of thousands of people arrested every year over tweets.
Political speech is basically criminalised in the UK at this point. This is not an establishment worth any of our respect.
hunterpayne 3 hours ago [-]
You forgot the part where they are literally debating if to get rid of jury trials or not because the government didn't hire enough judges.
dukeyukey 2 hours ago [-]
Worth pointing out the US has similar restrictions already. Why is the UK catching flak for discussing this?
Nursie 50 minutes ago [-]
> arrested in the UK for holding blank signs within vicinity of Palestine marches.
Got a source on this one?
Supporting Palestine in the UK has never been illegal. Supporting the specific group "Palestine Action" has been as they were for a while a proscribed terrorist organisation due to what was (IMHO) some property crimes committed against defense contractors by some of their members. Totally wrong, and has now been struck down in the courts, but saying "you can't support palestine" is also wrong.
> Thousands of people arrested every year over tweets.
The source I saw on this one had clear examples of violent threats and calls to set buildings full of people on fire, so I'm not sure this is clear either.
Blikkentrekker 26 minutes ago [-]
> 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.
The line is quite thin and ambiguous though. If they want to get someone they will and find that various remarks “encourage violence”.
Almost any opinion that isn't nice can be argued to encourage violence.
TeapotNotKettle 5 hours ago [-]
“Burn old fella burn”, felt like political speech - but that didn’t work out so well.
Dylan16807 5 hours ago [-]
> 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.
specproc 7 hours ago [-]
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 7 hours ago [-]
It happens to citizens of the UK everyday, so I'm not really into finding out how tourists are treated.
marcus_holmes 41 minutes ago [-]
You are the victim of misinformation and need to check your sources.
2postsperday 6 hours ago [-]
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.
sva_ 4 hours ago [-]
I just went there as German and it actually went really smooth. They just asked me why I'm visiting and I said to visit a friend/tourism, took less than 2 minutes. So I think this is FUD
fc417fc802 3 hours ago [-]
That's usually how it goes with the US as well but every now and then they decide to search someone's electronic devices.
Of course AFAIK this can happen pretty much everywhere at this point so your only hope is being a citizen of a country that doesn't allow it for locals (such as the US) and then not traveling. Or wipe your devices prior to traveling.
umanwizard 5 hours ago [-]
You can be arrested for being racist in Brazil
n3t 4 hours ago [-]
Ireland, in contrast to Northern Ireland, is not part of the UK.
edwcross 7 hours ago [-]
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.
lovich 5 hours ago [-]
Not like good ole America where you can get arrested for mocking Charlie Kirk.
hunterpayne 2 hours ago [-]
Nobody was arrested. Plenty of people got fired from private sector jobs. Your employer not wanting to be associated with your terrible behavior isn't the same as the government jailing people for the "wrong" opinion.
Not to say it, but instead to choose to say something both interesting and directly responsive to the comment you're replying to.
Leynos 6 hours ago [-]
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.
throwawaytea 4 hours ago [-]
Laws can be in existence for decades before they are weaponized against people.
It's illegal to have most eBay/Amazon bulbs on your car because they are not DOT approved.
If someday they start impounding cars crossing state borders with light bars, fog lights, and LEDs of races they don't want in that state... Someone like you will say "you're just making stuff up, that law has been on effect since 1961."
DANmode 5 hours ago [-]
Does it?
9dev 6 hours ago [-]
> Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally.
Curious time to complain about the UK doing this (*points broadly eastwards*)
protocolture 5 hours ago [-]
>Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally.
Ofcom is probably full of non technical people who have been given a specific set of (stupid) instructions including that if its on the internet, its a product being sold to the UK.
recursive 4 hours ago [-]
"Just following orders"
protocolture 18 minutes ago [-]
Pretty much. But the outcome being a bunch of emails and court action instead of like, genocide.
miki123211 2 hours ago [-]
I think it's good that the UK is trying this right now. It's bound to set a precedent, and the UK isn't powerful enough for that precedent to be in favor of the idea that you have to follow other countries' laws if you're on the internet. Doubly so with Trump II making freedom of speech and overbearing European regulations a political issue.
If America introduced a law like this, especially the strong, late-aughts, pre-Trump America, I bet most countries would just cave in, just like most caved in when copyright and AML/KYC laws were concerned. Hell, Swicerland basically abolished anonymous bank accounts, something which the country was famous for, just because the US wanted them to. I don't think we'll see a similar resolution here.
wisty 5 hours ago [-]
“Parliamentary supremacy means that Parliament can legislate for all persons and all places. If it enacts that smoking in the streets of Paris is an offence, then it is an offence.”(Ivor Jennings)
It is also accepted that enforcement can be an issue if the law is an absurd overreach (like the UK criminalising smoking in the streets of Paris).
nobodyandproud 4 hours ago [-]
So, does a powerful foreign the UK and put the Parliament out of its misery?
behringer 7 hours ago [-]
If it's insufficient then there's no risk of removing the geoblocking then.
croes 7 hours ago [-]
> Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally.
They learned from the US
15155 7 hours ago [-]
The United Kingdom's once-relevant hegemony existed centuries before the United States.
croes 7 hours ago [-]
There is the difference.
They made the whole world British so the British laws applied everywhere.
swarnie 8 hours ago [-]
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.
BobbyJo 2 hours ago [-]
I mean, IP meant a lot more in 2006 than in it does now in 2026. The IP economy has basically died, so of course IP/Data based trade deals no longer make sense.
NullPrefix 8 hours ago [-]
NL VPNs will bend the knee to EU regulation
swarnie 7 hours ago [-]
One click its Algeria, or Singapore, or Canada.
We can move much faster then they can legislate.
Spivak 8 hours ago [-]
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 7 hours ago [-]
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 7 hours ago [-]
It helps when you spend trillions annually on your military. Might makes right.
badc0ffee 4 hours ago [-]
The US isn't spending trillions/year on the military, at least not yet. It might crack 1 trillion in the near future.
XorNot 6 hours ago [-]
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.
7 hours ago [-]
varispeed 7 hours ago [-]
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!
chrisjj 3 hours ago [-]
> Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally
What, Ofcom is trying to restrict viewing outside UK?
kimixa 9 hours ago [-]
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.
epolanski 7 hours ago [-]
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.
troad 5 hours ago [-]
> not offer services to several countries
The kind of vague phrasing that makes one immediately suspicious. What were these 'several countries'? Iran? Cuba? North Korea?
> also US customers were 30% of the total which made it a non choice
You're literally operating in the US then. It's obvious US laws would apply if you're serving US customers.
epolanski 4 hours ago [-]
> What were these 'several countries'? Iran? Cuba? North Korea?
It doesn't matter which those were, we were obliged to respect laws of the European country we were incorporated, not US ones.
snypher 43 minutes ago [-]
It matters because it gives context to the potential reason they were behaving that way.
troad 4 hours ago [-]
You're serving US customers. You are doing business in the US, and therefore you are subject to US law. What about when a customer requests a refund, do you just pretend US consumer protection laws don't apply to that customer? Or to turn your logic around, can American corporations do business in Europe while just completely ignoring the GDPR and all other European laws?
Laws are not a buffet. You choose to do business in a market, you've opted to be regulated in that market.
You are absolutely free to sell your services to whoever you want, but the US is equally free to refuse to allow you to operate domestically if you're breaking their laws (and otherwise make your life difficult if you e.g. rely on US banking infrastructure). If you want to do business in Iran, don't expect to do business in the US.
epolanski 4 hours ago [-]
Except that the hint was for criminal charges, not lack of business :)
troad 4 hours ago [-]
Zero difference. If someone is selling children's toys, and 30% of her customers are in the US, and then it turns out her toys are made entirely of lead and asbestos, should she not face US criminal penalties?
You choose to do business in a jurisdiction, you bind yourself to their laws. That means all laws, not just ones you like, or think that are relevant to your business. Laws are not a buffet.
Don't do business in jurisdictions where you feel like you cannot comply with domestic law. No one is requiring you to do business in the US. People choose to do business in the US so they can profit from US customers, and that's totally fine, but doesn't come with some magical immunity to US law.
epolanski 4 hours ago [-]
I agree with you, but you keep missing that:
1. This isn't about business but charges. There's no way in hell US can e.g. prosecute non us citizens from trading with Cuba e.g. the embargo applies to US individuals and companies. The rest of the world, e.g. European countries, have normal relations with Cuba and nobody gives two damns about the embargo.
2. The same thing happens in reverse and applies to US companies doing business overseas.
halapro 35 minutes ago [-]
It depends, really.
Anyone who sells to my enemies is my enemy. You yourself can be subject to embargoes.
Francesca Albanese cannot do banking with banks from her own country because the US said so. Read: third parties that have relations with the US are barred from doing business with you or else risk being blacklisted too.
> This isn't about business but charges. There's no way in hell US can e.g. prosecute non us citizens from trading with Cuba
Sure it can. It can do whatever it wants in its domestic courts. Turkmenistan can prosecute you and me right now for failure to pay insufficient deference to dear leader. Whether this impacts us in any way is the actual question. We presumably do not want to do business in Turkmenistan. But the OP wants to do business in the US. Ergo, the OP is subject to US law, irrespective of what he thinks US law should look like or what its limits ought to be.
OP doesn't have to do business in the US at all and be completely and utterly untouched by US law - he won't be extradited anywhere unless the offence in question is also an offence in his own country, which as you point out, the Cuban embargo (etc) isn't. This is how you and I stay safe from the many Turkmenistani indictments hanging over us.
This is not a case of someone bravely standing up for justice and freedom, this is a case of someone wanting to profit from US customers but somehow have total immunity from US law. And I'd respectfully point out that if the countries were reversed, and we were talking about e.g. Russia, the European countries would be apoplectic about anyone doing business there. Imagine a Brazilian company selling drone motors to Russia. Can its executives expect to travel freely through the EU without fear of arrest? Do business in the EU?
epolanski 3 hours ago [-]
Who's profiting from us customers?
You sound like the lunatic president you have thinking that foreign countries are profiting of us, while sending goods and taking pieces of paper in exchange. Or in the world of some economist, my barber profits from me because I got there every two weeks but he never buys anything from me. As if I am not getting a service in exchange!
In any case, since you're unaware, Canada and EU have legislation that prohibits Canadian and European companies from obliging with US embargo of Cuba. That is, I can face criminal charges in Europe or Canada for refusing services to Cuba.
But speaking with you is pointless.
You're the usual case thinking US is an exception to the rules, where it can dictate it's terms beyond its borders and get away with the opposite.
Sleep well.
troad 3 hours ago [-]
> Who's profiting from us customers?
Uhhh... the person whose company has 30% of its customers in the US. See above.
> You sound like the lunatic president you have
> You're the usual case thinking US is an exception to the rules, where it can dictate it's terms beyond its borders and get away with the opposite.
Cool. I'm not American. I'm literally just quoting International Private Law (aka Conflict of Laws) to you. And I'm doing so while being careful to give other examples from other countries.
I've literally not once said I approve of any of these laws. But this seems to be the difference between you and me - I don't bend the rules to get to outcomes I like. You sell to Cuba, or you sell to the US. Do I like that? No. Is that the law? Yes. One would not be very effective in international business if they failed to realise this kind of thing.
> You're the usual case thinking US is an exception to the rules
And, conversely, I think you're the usual case in trying to make the US a unique big bad, when they're doing absolutely nothing out of the ordinary in this area, and certainly nothing that Europe doesn't constantly do when it regulates for foreigners and foreign businesses trying to interact with or through the EU. (Something the EU does more of, proudly and loudly, than anyone else on Earth.)
Sleep well! (It's the morning here.)
jxdxbx 8 hours ago [-]
I am hardy a fan of these processes but they are not "extraterritorial" in the same way, since the registrars were generally US-based.
petcat 9 hours ago [-]
USA doesn't block websites. The FBI will seize domains after some judicial review and a court order. That's about it.
kimixa 8 hours ago [-]
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.
A court issued that ruling. Not an administrative agency. Pretty big difference.
InvertedRhodium 4 hours ago [-]
So if the UK gets a court to ratify these orders then you’re on board with them being globally enforced?
betaby 2 hours ago [-]
The article above is about US ISP ordered to block sites for US customer.
Not 'globally' enforced. Important difference.
Ofcourse, everybody ( well, outside the UK ) are OK if UK orders UK ISPs blocks sites for their customers.
themafia 1 hours ago [-]
I think one advantage is you can directly appeal a court ruling. To challenge an administrative order you need to sue the government. In some cases, you need to sue the government in a separate trial first, in order to get permission to start suing them for cause in another one.
Another advantage as the other reply has mentioned is that courts have broad authority but must narrow the effect of their rulings to the minimum necessary to address the suit. In this case it would certainly lead to 4Chan being blocked by UK ISPs by order of a UK court. I think even 4Chan would be fine with that.
ascorbic 7 hours ago [-]
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 7 hours ago [-]
"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.
aaomidi 9 hours ago [-]
And you can use cctlds to bypass this too
ronsor 8 hours ago [-]
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.
NicuCalcea 2 hours ago [-]
> It is further ordered that all ISPs (including without limitation those set forth in Exhibit B hereto) and any other ISPs providing services in the United States shall block access to the Website at any domain address known today (including but not limited to those set forth in Exhibit A hereto) or to be used in the future by the Defendants (“Newly Detected Websites”) by any technological means available on the ISPs’ systems. The domain addresses and any Newly Detected Websites shall be channeled in such a way that users will be unable to connect and/or use the Website, and will be diverted by the ISPs’ DNS servers to a landing page operated and controlled by Plaintiffs (the “Landing Page”).
Nah they're aware. They just think the US has the absolute right to be a hypocrite and not to be called out on it, ever
soco 9 hours ago [-]
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?
greycol 8 hours ago [-]
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.
pixl97 8 hours ago [-]
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.
testing22321 2 hours ago [-]
You know a bunch of people feel that way about the US forcing it’s copyright laws on everyone, right?
phendrenad2 8 hours ago [-]
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.
dijit 10 hours ago [-]
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.
3rodents 9 hours ago [-]
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 9 hours ago [-]
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 9 hours ago [-]
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.
oliwarner 8 hours ago [-]
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.
falcor84 4 hours ago [-]
I would strongly disagree with that, in the sense of the layer of communication that 4chan operate at. I would argue that 4chan aren't sending packets to the UK any more than I'm currently sending my keystrokes to wherever you are reading this from - these actions are performed at a different layer.
If the UK wants to block packets from across the pond, they should (but I hope they don't) do it via a Great Firewall, rather than expecting random foreign websites to do it for them.
Ajedi32 8 hours ago [-]
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 7 hours ago [-]
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 7 hours ago [-]
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!
tyho 9 hours ago [-]
4chan send their packets to their ISP, not the UK.
3rodents 8 hours ago [-]
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.
8 hours ago [-]
strideashort 7 hours ago [-]
not at all, 4chan only sends packets to their isp!
2postsperday 6 hours ago [-]
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.
estimator7292 6 hours ago [-]
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 5 hours ago [-]
Not actually how TCP/IP works though.
strken 5 hours ago [-]
Can you elaborate? The metaphor is a good description of how a VPN works, if not plain old TCP/IP.
otherme123 8 hours ago [-]
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.
marcus_holmes 30 minutes ago [-]
France stopped Yahoo! from selling nazi memorabilia in France (because it's illegal to do that in France). This actually went through the US courts and they agreed, mostly [0].
It's kinda voluntary, though, there's no international agreement about this.
Just to clarify for casual readers: there’s no blanket ban on swastikas in Germany. You can use it for satire or historical reasons. You’re going to find a lot of swastikas on the German Wikipedia for example.
wrongwrong111 6 hours ago [-]
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.
mattmanser 8 hours ago [-]
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 8 hours ago [-]
The US would likely not process those extraditions, and it would make trade and international relations worse for no real benefit.
jimnotgym 7 hours ago [-]
Whereas the US are very happy to demand extradition when the shoe is on the other foot.
mattmanser 8 hours ago [-]
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 8 hours ago [-]
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 6 hours ago [-]
Like tariffs?
The US are already playing this game. Can you not see that?
hunterpayne 2 hours ago [-]
You realize that the EU has had tariffs on US goods for a very long time right? I'm not saying tariffs are good, but its hypocritical to protest against behavior in which you are currently engaging.
ronsor 2 hours ago [-]
I know the tariffs are the bad thing of the moment (and they certainly are capricious), but I don't think you understand how much worse things can get.
buzer 6 hours ago [-]
> 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 6 hours ago [-]
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 6 hours ago [-]
> 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 9 hours ago [-]
That sounds so gross. Why do British people tolerate that?
It’s as if British people belong to their government.
michaelt 8 hours ago [-]
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.
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.
> 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.
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
7 hours ago [-]
Dylan16807 5 hours ago [-]
What's especially silly is effectively deciding the legality based on the dialog.
3rodents 8 hours ago [-]
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.
Saying Maduro was democratically elected was too rich.
drnick1 7 hours ago [-]
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?
ImJamal 8 hours ago [-]
Maduro was not legitimately and democratically elected.
3rodents 8 hours ago [-]
Potato potato. No less legitimate than Trump.
ImJamal 8 hours ago [-]
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 7 hours ago [-]
Didn't Trump admit that Musk fixed it for him?
rootusrootus 6 hours ago [-]
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.
ImJamal 6 hours ago [-]
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...
LAC-Tech 8 hours ago [-]
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.
anigbrowl 8 hours ago [-]
It’s as if British people belong to their government.
Legally speaking, British people are subjects, not citizens.
shellac 8 hours ago [-]
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.
What’s the difference? I’m not knowledgeable enough about English law to parse this
NullPrefix 8 hours ago [-]
The term is called "Subject of The Crown"
miohtama 9 hours ago [-]
But are you allowed to post pictures of your cocaine on a website that is not in the UK?
3rodents 8 hours ago [-]
You're even allowed to post photos of your cocaine on U.K. websites!
miohtama 8 hours ago [-]
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,
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 8 hours ago [-]
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 7 hours ago [-]
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 5 hours ago [-]
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 5 hours ago [-]
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?
8 hours ago [-]
tokyobreakfast 10 hours ago [-]
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.
strideashort 9 hours ago [-]
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 9 hours ago [-]
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 8 hours ago [-]
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]
> the UK really heading quickly towards a Great Firewall
> top most read article on BBC News right now is yet another public sector cover up
Do you not see a tiny little bit of contradiction here (regardless of your mis-characterisation of the second link)
hunterpayne 1 hours ago [-]
No, I think it is you who is confused. The GP's point is that the BBC article isn't accurate or honest. You seem to have assumed the information in the link was accurate when the proof the GP implied was that the link isn't accurate.
ge96 9 hours ago [-]
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.
refulgentis 9 hours ago [-]
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 7 hours ago [-]
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).
tokyobreakfast 9 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
refulgentis 9 hours ago [-]
What do you mean?
I’m at +4, so, I’m doubting it’s unreadable…
cookiengineer 9 hours ago [-]
> Are you having a mini-stroke?
This comment is comically pointless.
jimnotgym 7 hours ago [-]
> 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.
crtasm 10 hours ago [-]
Is it correct to say the consumer is importing a product when it's aliexpress shipping it to them?
nvme0n1p1 9 hours ago [-]
Of course. What situation are you imagining where a country imports a product without the seller shipping the product to that country?
helsinkiandrew 9 hours ago [-]
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 8 hours ago [-]
They have initiated the transaction. It would be "shipping to them" if somebody is sending them something by their own volition.
john_strinlai 10 hours ago [-]
yes, aliexpress would not be shipping it if the consumer did not order it.
reisse 10 hours ago [-]
Unless AliExpress has a local entity, like they do in some countries, yes.
9 hours ago [-]
RobotToaster 7 hours ago [-]
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".
9 hours ago [-]
john_strinlai 10 hours ago [-]
>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.
uyzstvqs 8 hours ago [-]
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.
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.
aydyn 9 hours ago [-]
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.
gadders 10 hours ago [-]
If it wasn't for 4Chan, we might never have solved the Haruhi problem
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.
monegator 8 hours ago [-]
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.
cindyllm 8 hours ago [-]
[dead]
windowliker 5 hours ago [-]
>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.
I remember him. Sadly he got evicted in the end. F.
john_strinlai 10 hours ago [-]
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.
SkyeCA 3 hours ago [-]
> and they have also driven people to suicide
As has Reddit, Facebook, etc.
Bad things occasionally happening on a platform doesn't make the platform/site inherently bad.
nvme0n1p1 9 hours ago [-]
Replace "4chan" with "humanity in general" and your statement still holds true.
BobaFloutist 9 hours ago [-]
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.
john_strinlai 9 hours ago [-]
sure, yeah, the original quote was about a person instead of a website, so that makes sense.
8 hours ago [-]
OsrsNeedsf2P 10 hours ago [-]
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]
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.
comex 9 hours ago [-]
> 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.
> 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 8 hours ago [-]
[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.
gnfargbl 10 hours ago [-]
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.
cm2187 9 hours ago [-]
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.
bigfatkitten 9 hours ago [-]
The UK, like Australia and many of its other offshoots has always had a bit of a totalitarian streak.
2postsperday 6 hours ago [-]
Meanwhile every state in the US is implementing age verification "technology".
There is something bigger at play, and its not US or UK...
hunterpayne 1 hours ago [-]
Oddly that's Zuck doing that. And weirdly, the law would only apply to app stores. I think that's a separate movement from what the UK is doing though. That US law is designed to hamstring Meta's competition not restrict political speech but it can be abused the same way I think.
bitwize 32 minutes ago [-]
The Debian apt repository is a "covered app store" under the law, as is any place that makes software available for download.
bigmealbigmeal 9 hours ago [-]
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.
tokyobreakfast 9 hours ago [-]
So, the Great FUK for short?
AlgorithmicTime 8 hours ago [-]
[dead]
fauigerzigerk 9 hours ago [-]
UK ISPs do block some domains though.
gnfargbl 9 hours ago [-]
Which does nothing to block 4chan, because everyone knows what a VPN is and how to get one.
dmix 9 hours ago [-]
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 9 hours ago [-]
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 9 hours ago [-]
Unlike other websites though, VPNs are generally banned from posting on 4chan, which would definitely hurt traffic.
cocoto 5 hours ago [-]
Yes but the number of 4chan passes would skyrocket to be able to post with a VPN.
thunderfork 9 hours ago [-]
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 9 hours ago [-]
> 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.
drcongo 9 hours ago [-]
I hope they do block it.
umpalumpaaa 8 hours ago [-]
Well the US government / prosecutors go after people who break their laws all the time… eg. Kim .Com, etc
christkv 10 hours ago [-]
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 10 hours ago [-]
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 7 hours ago [-]
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 10 hours ago [-]
The real goal it to start banning US sites like fb,aws etc so that Europe starts building their own
zer00eyz 8 hours ago [-]
> 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 7 hours ago [-]
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.
christkv 8 hours ago [-]
Nah fb, aws etc will comply. They have no spine.
chrisjj 10 hours ago [-]
> 4Chan operates in the US
And the UK... each time it delivers there.
anigbrowl 8 hours ago [-]
Don't give up your day job.
chrisjj 7 hours ago [-]
Too late. I did that years ago!
richwater 9 hours ago [-]
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.
369548684892826 4 hours ago [-]
Surely they do have the legal basis, that's how the fine got issued. What they're missing is any way to enforce it.
wat10000 9 hours ago [-]
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.
vorpalhex 9 hours ago [-]
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 9 hours ago [-]
> 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 8 hours ago [-]
> 4Chan has blocked the entire UK IP range
this isn't true
JonChesterfield 7 hours ago [-]
Nope. A direct connection from residential British Telecom line is fine.
dmix 9 hours ago [-]
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.
It's unfortunate that the US lawyers did not cite the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram.
2b3a51 9 hours ago [-]
Arkell v Pressdram was in response to a civil claim that never reached a court, so slightly different.
I take the wider point though.
epolanski 7 hours ago [-]
But 4chan doesn't geoblock users?
So it's clearly operating globally.
Country flags are a major feature of the board.
sippeangelo 6 hours ago [-]
4chan is clearly operating in the US. The UK can easily cut the overseas cables and fix the problem!
epolanski 4 hours ago [-]
It doesn't matter where 4Chan is incorporated if it offers a service available to other countries.
If I offer a service in US I still have to respect US law, it doesn't matter that I'm based in Luxembourg or New Zealand.
The same applies in reverse.
E.g. many US news outlets never cared to implement gdpr and geoblocked European users from accessing their websites.
andersa 2 hours ago [-]
Thinking that you are operating in the UK because a UK user can theoretically send packets to you, is similar to thinking a corner store in Japan is operating in the UK because a brit can theoretically get on a plane and fly there to shop.
Onavo 9 hours ago [-]
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.
petcat 10 hours ago [-]
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.
j-krieger 10 hours ago [-]
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 9 hours ago [-]
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.
hunterpayne 35 minutes ago [-]
"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."
The UK government has been openly doing this for a couple of years by now.
4ndrewl 8 hours ago [-]
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 9 hours ago [-]
Same. The responses are consistently "but they only restrict bad speech"
We've had Hadrian's firewall blocking certain piracy sites for years.
tokyobreakfast 10 hours ago [-]
Most Brits already have a VPN to beat off so the effect will be negligible.
jjice 10 hours ago [-]
"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 10 hours ago [-]
The average middle aged individual probably doesn't read 4chan.
VPN take up in the UK is around 20-25%
7 hours ago [-]
petcat 9 hours ago [-]
And then they'll make VPNs illegal
itintheory 7 hours ago [-]
I suspect they'll be harder (impossible?) to block, but that will probably deter the casual user.
Melonai 6 hours ago [-]
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.
9 hours ago [-]
policno 9 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
rconti 11 hours ago [-]
> "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?
Aloisius 9 hours ago [-]
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 8 hours ago [-]
you got yer loiscence?
ceejayoz 10 hours ago [-]
This is more like the UK fining Parisian bars that courier alcohol to under-18s in the UK.
strideashort 9 hours ago [-]
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.
tsukikage 10 hours ago [-]
More like the UK fining US porn publishers for not stopping British kids searching through the hedges in their street
jjgreen 8 hours ago [-]
Hedge-porn, I remember hedge-porn ...
shaky-carrousel 10 hours ago [-]
Which is equally absurd.
OJFord 10 hours ago [-]
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 10 hours ago [-]
Amazon is an international corporation with UK-incorporated entities.
OJFord 10 hours ago [-]
That's true but not relevant to the spirit of the point.
ronsor 10 hours ago [-]
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 6 hours ago [-]
And on an electronic delivery, is a great firewall the equivalent of customs? And therfore the only way to enforce sovereignty?
testing22321 2 hours ago [-]
Absolutely yes. If a government thinks there is stuff for sale its citizens should not be allowed to buy, they don’t stop county x making it or selling it. They block the thing from entering their country.
If the government thinks there are ones and zeros on the internet it’s citizens should not be allowed to see, they should block them from entering the country.
echoangle 3 hours ago [-]
Practically, yes.
shrubble 10 hours ago [-]
It’s a lot more like banning the importation of books and newspapers that the government doesn’t agree with…
OJFord 10 hours ago [-]
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.
10 hours ago [-]
dijit 10 hours ago [-]
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.
jltsiren 6 hours ago [-]
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.
cjbgkagh 10 hours ago [-]
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.
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... .
dijit 10 hours ago [-]
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.
OJFord 9 hours ago [-]
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.)
quesera 4 hours ago [-]
> Commonwealth countries have extraterritorial jurisdiction
No countries have extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Some countries have a lot of influence over the local jurisdiction outside of their own territory.
The UK doesn't have much influence like that.
But if the UK has any minesweepers, I bet this could all be sorted out with a few phone calls.
tacticalturtle 5 hours ago [-]
> 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
testing22321 2 hours ago [-]
> See: the US using special forces to kidnap Maduro
That was very clearly illegal and has nothing to do with laws.
testing22321 2 hours ago [-]
Interestingly if you go to Canada and legally smoke weed then try to go to the US a month later, you can get denied because you did something that is perfectly legal in Canada, but not the US
pearlsontheroad 10 hours ago [-]
afaik, prostitution is either legal or partially legal on the majority of Western countries.
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.
6 hours ago [-]
rjsw 10 hours ago [-]
France can fine Parisian bars that serve alcohol to under-18s itself.
themafia 6 hours ago [-]
They should arrange a book burning too. Since they seem to believe that foreign words are inherently dangerous.
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.
giobox 10 hours ago [-]
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.
yesco 2 hours ago [-]
This dynamic could also be argued as a cause of the War of 1812.
fluoridation 6 hours ago [-]
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 10 hours ago [-]
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 10 hours ago [-]
> 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 9 hours ago [-]
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.
I mean, first and foremost, Tiktok has offices in the US and employees thousands of people here.
dmitrygr 9 hours ago [-]
Simply put: The US has the ability to enforce or to cause enough pain to cause self-enforcement </realpolitik>
epolanski 7 hours ago [-]
Which will ultimately push alienation towards US for good.
Trump is merely a huge accelerator of an existing trend.
dmitrygr 6 hours ago [-]
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.
epolanski 4 hours ago [-]
Or one can say enough and decide to cut off doing business in or with US.
dmitrygr 4 hours ago [-]
Not a realistic option in today's world, sorry. I can suggest some literature
epolanski 4 hours ago [-]
You don't need to, I have worked with multiple clients that faced this very option.
And yes, the choice was still to do business with US in every case, but I can tell you 100% it was far from a crystal clear easy decision and that the camel is breaking.
You can only push so much.
epolanski 7 hours ago [-]
> 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.
hunterpayne 10 minutes ago [-]
But to be clear, those businesses wanted to make money from the US market. In the case of 4chan, they don't make money from the UK. Somehow, this important distinction keeps getting ignored. You want to sell in the UK market, you have to follow their rules. Same with the US. Somehow the British government doesn't seem to understand this.
nkrisc 8 hours ago [-]
> but you can't regulate a foreign business.
Sure they can. It’s unlikely they can do anything about it though.
cyberclimb 10 hours ago [-]
How about the EU imposing GDPR restrictions on non-eu companies?
Valodim 10 hours ago [-]
Depends on whether those businesses want to do business with the EU
ecshafer 9 hours ago [-]
It should only affect companies that have a presence in Europe, as in an office or some entity.
ceayo 10 hours ago [-]
The GDPR is about your data being handled overseas.
OFCOM&co is about overseas data going to you.
epolanski 7 hours ago [-]
They only apply to your business in Europe.
You don't need to apply gdpr when serving non European users.
RadiozRadioz 10 hours ago [-]
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.
icehawk 2 hours ago [-]
I may have a positive personal opinion of the GDPR, but I ignore all GDPR requests for the website I have that you can just visit, because I don't want to be seen as doing business that makes me subject to GDPR
Radle 4 hours ago [-]
Or these are oranges and apples, and your perspective is simply blurred because you are starting a fight whenever someone wants you to put up your glasses.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
phendrenad2 7 hours ago [-]
You can hold a mirror up to HN, but you can't make them look.
internet2000 10 hours ago [-]
Let kids go to 4chan. I frequented it and turned out fine.
patates 10 hours ago [-]
I used to hang out there too. However, describing me as 'fine' would require a lengthy debate over definitions.
abcde666777 7 hours ago [-]
Still do to be honest. Always a good place for a little catharsis.
fghj888999 2 hours ago [-]
I honestly only go there for the same reason and directly after big news. DLSS5's announcement was the first time I went in nearly a year. I wanted to find trolls and I did, and the whole flamewar was the best digital popcorn I had in months.
throwpoaster 10 hours ago [-]
The problem is you're getting downvoted by the people who didn't.
akramachamarei 10 hours ago [-]
Bold to assume downvoters vote on first-hand knowledge.
sayYayToLife 9 hours ago [-]
[dead]
windowliker 5 hours ago [-]
4chan is already on most of the adult content filters used in the UK at ISP level (along with other such egregious offenders against childhood purity as archive.org) meaning that an explicit request to remove the filter is often required to access it... That it has taken this long to implement a universal block at the ISP level shows that the motive is something other than 'protecting the innocent'.
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.
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!”
sedatk 4 hours ago [-]
Is 4Chan still accessible from the US states with age verification laws?
I'm pretty sure in one they responded saying their lawyer was alseep in a ditch and would reply when he woke up lol
AJRF 9 hours ago [-]
This is all just theatre to justify a ban right?
doublerabbit 8 hours ago [-]
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.
mgaunard 4 hours ago [-]
The age check laws is just funneling money directly to VPN companies.
There's no way anyone sensible would give over their identity to dodgy websites. It's easier to just pretend to be in a different country.
azangru 4 hours ago [-]
If they blocked RT, they can block 4chan if they so choose. Why would they expect a company that does not target the British audience to have any concern for British laws?
hunterpayne 4 minutes ago [-]
Because the British government thinks its 1813 still.
JamesTRexx 10 hours ago [-]
4chan doesn't need age checks, everyone knows there are only five year olds on it. :-p
bauruine 8 hours ago [-]
The Internet: Where the men are men, the women are men and the children are FBI agents.
kps 9 hours ago [-]
Those were FBI agents. Expect a knock on your door any time now.
subscribed 9 hours ago [-]
Twenty five years old :-p
chuckadams 10 hours ago [-]
Amateurs. Russia has fined Google more than the GDP of the entire planet. Odds of collecting are about the same.
chrisjj 10 hours ago [-]
Odds of collecting some 4chan execs travelling abroad are a lot higher, though
vorpalhex 9 hours ago [-]
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 9 hours ago [-]
> 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 9 hours ago [-]
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 8 hours ago [-]
I do not think 4chan has executives.
chrisjj 7 hours ago [-]
I think the fact 4chan instructed a lawyer shows it does.
sackfield 5 hours ago [-]
It feels more and more embarrassing as time goes by to tell people I am British.
DroneBetter 10 hours ago [-]
> 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...)
windowliker 4 hours ago [-]
Sadly what has actually happened is that many niche interest discussion forums have shut their doors due to fears of regulatory repercussion and fines.
aincodle 6 hours ago [-]
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.
epolanski 7 hours ago [-]
I'm Italian and can confirm that half of the major porn websites require age checks.
jgilias 6 hours ago [-]
Getting more convinced day by day that bureaucrats of all countries are all pretty dense.
gverrilla 3 hours ago [-]
4chan is the one that should be mocked. One of the biggest assortment of losers on earth.
parliament32 8 hours ago [-]
In the midst of the 4chan v. Ofcom civil suit? Interesting.
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 10 hours ago [-]
Yes, this is part of the consent manufacturing process.
kleene_op 10 hours ago [-]
That's the plan. But if they do it right away people will revolt.
The best way to protect citizens of the UK from material online might be to sever their international network connections.
flenserboy 7 hours ago [-]
"safety breaches" is a deeply Orwellian term.
demorro 6 hours ago [-]
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.
chocoboaus3 6 hours ago [-]
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.
RobRivera 8 hours ago [-]
Hiroshimoot must be sweating bullets
vasco 10 hours ago [-]
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.
epolanski 7 hours ago [-]
I don't remember who said it, but protecting children isn't the end goal, it's tracking adults.
FridayoLeary 9 hours ago [-]
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.
RiverCrochet 8 hours ago [-]
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 7 hours ago [-]
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 6 hours ago [-]
I agree with you about infinite scroll. I don't know you so i couldn't possibly comment on your other claim...
2postsperday 4 hours ago [-]
Millions of people use or have used 4chan.
There is not a million school shooters.
rocqua 9 hours ago [-]
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 8 hours ago [-]
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 6 hours ago [-]
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 6 hours ago [-]
> 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.
2OEH8eoCRo0 10 hours ago [-]
Do you have children?
mapotofu 10 hours ago [-]
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 10 hours ago [-]
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 9 hours ago [-]
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.
doright 44 minutes ago [-]
Should 4chan or something similarly extreme be recommended reading for children/adolescents to understand the horrors of the world then?
I would bet that some young people will be as reflective and independently minded as you were to integrate the material into their experience and be better off for it. Some (like me, because I was thin-skinned) won't and it will stress them out or traumatize them instead. Does that make them lesser human beings for not being capable of bettering themselves from seeing the unfiltered truth on their own?
For all the benefit of 4chan, and I do say there is some benefit only after having grown into an adult with better critical thinking skills and years of therapy, it self-selects for a certain type of poster capable of lurking enough, following the norms and having a thick skin. Not everyone will clear that bar and it's unreasonable to think that all young people will turn out like yourself having immersed themselves in it. Some could end up wasting a lot of time baited into petty arguments, or worse.
gleenn 10 hours ago [-]
Raising children is hard but assuming everyone has to sacrifice their rights so your job is easier means everyone means everyone loses long term.
oarsinsync 10 hours ago [-]
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.
9 hours ago [-]
nvarsj 6 hours ago [-]
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.
epolanski 7 hours ago [-]
Can't UK simply blacklist 4chan?
themafia 6 hours ago [-]
No this is about using children as pawns, not actually, like, protecting them or anything.
chrisjj 13 hours ago [-]
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.
stackedinserter 28 minutes ago [-]
It's insane how many people here on HN defend these bs fines. Prepare to follow Russia's laws if you normalize this.
9864247888754 2 hours ago [-]
When will the British rise up against Starmer's corrupt, Epsteinian regime
phendrenad2 8 hours ago [-]
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.
LAC-Tech 8 hours ago [-]
Good. These ridiculous extraterritorial laws should be broken and mocked at every opportunity.
ChrisArchitect 9 hours ago [-]
Related:
Ofcom has today fined 4chan £450k for not having age checks in place
> 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.)
rjh29 9 hours ago [-]
The first part is true but the second sentence seems dubious to me. Did they compute that from the previous visitor numbers or something?
Scaled 9 hours ago [-]
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.
epolanski 7 hours ago [-]
In Italy porn websites also require age verification now, lately everybody is complying.
erelong 10 hours ago [-]
"As they should"
guelo 10 hours ago [-]
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 10 hours ago [-]
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.
rocqua 8 hours ago [-]
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.
guelo 9 hours ago [-]
Who are you to decide what should or should not be?
"proper parental control software" doesn't exist for a lot of the platforms.
windowliker 4 hours ago [-]
Ironically, the UK already has ISP level implementations to filter adult/illegal content that seem to work in most cases as intended. The lobby for this legislation came from groups concerned about matters more prevalent on large social media platforms who will barely be touched by the new regulations.
epolanski 7 hours ago [-]
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.
2postsperday 4 hours ago [-]
I don't see how one can come to this conclusion.
You can easily use prosumer routers/firewalls and other parental devices to block content you don't want. Millions of solutions exists and its trivial.
If you don't have the options in your router or OS level settings, you can 100% change the DNS server to Cloudflare's Family DNS, or a number of other family DNS solutions, many of which are offered for free.
You don't have to give your kid everything or nothing. You just have refused to look at the options. This is HN, we should be making tech for our families, investigating solutions!
2 hours ago [-]
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 9 hours ago [-]
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.
jongjong 6 hours ago [-]
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.
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 7 hours ago [-]
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.
£450k? - 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 10 hours ago [-]
They probably don't even expect 4chan to pay up - they just want them gone.
rjh29 9 hours ago [-]
Yeah. Nobody thinks they will pay the fine, it just shows non compliance.
sayYayToLife 9 hours ago [-]
[dead]
TheDeFiAngel63 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
yuvmal1k31 7 hours ago [-]
[dead]
AiStockAgent62 3 hours ago [-]
[dead]
doublediamond21 10 hours ago [-]
[dead]
wnevets 10 hours ago [-]
You mean the message board that collab-ed with Epstein? Delete them from the internet.
9864247888754 2 hours ago [-]
You mean the Starmer regime that collab-ed with Epstein? Delete them from existence.
wnevets 1 hours ago [-]
K
dmitrygr 10 hours ago [-]
4chan fighting for us all! Bravo.
robthebrew 11 hours ago [-]
4chan is still a thing? I thought it died long ago. Perhaps I grew up.
nslsm 10 hours ago [-]
It is, it didn’t, and you didn’t.
10 hours ago [-]
miladyincontrol 10 hours ago [-]
[dead]
mrtksn 9 hours ago [-]
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 9 hours ago [-]
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.
abletonlive 8 hours ago [-]
> 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.
dukeyukey 2 hours ago [-]
Worth pointing out the modern American conception of freedom of speech is super recent. It only really became a thing in the 1970s. Before then, restrictions on porn, film, even written materials on controversial subjects like abortion could and were regulated.
mrtksn 8 hours ago [-]
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.
LAC-Tech 8 hours ago [-]
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.
userbinator 2 hours ago [-]
The UK is no longer part of Europe.
gib444 11 minutes ago [-]
Oh sorry did it shift into the mid Atlantic or something?
You need to learn the difference between Europe the continent and the EU the political union. The two are not interchangeable.
> 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.
The cries of a long-since-dead empire slowly fading into geopolitical irrelevance.
So it really wouldn't be hard for the same legal framework that restricts age to happen in the US. It just takes compliance on our part. The UK is just one tentacle of the legal bureaucracy. It wouldn't surprise me if a bill appears called the Online Child Safey Act or something like that soon and it happens to coincide with a bunch of issues Ofcom raises in this lawsuit.
we’re seeing some good evidence the most recent pushes were secretly funded and directly written by meta, the corporation. [0][1]
according to the link in there,
> Rep. Kim Carver (R-Bossier City), the sponsor of Louisiana's HB-570, publicly confirmed that a Meta lobbyist brought the legislative language directly to her.
and they’ve put as much as 2 billion dollars into it. and yes, that’s billion, with a B.
corporations openai, meta, and google were absolutely backing the push for the age verification bill in california and ohio. [2][3][4]
[0] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/reddit-user-uncovers-beh...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47361235
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45244049
[3] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/13/california-advances...
[4] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/meta-google-back-differe...
The original research is riddled with baked in conclusions, and has not been verified independently. Its also mostly LLM generated.
Venezuela showed everyone what happens when you're a toothless country. USA shows up at your door uninvited, fucks your shit up, takes your oil and kidnaps your president for good measure, just to tack on some extra humiliation.
Don't get me wrong, Maduro deserved an even worse fate than what he got. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. It's still a cautionary tale for nations worldwide. It can happen to you. China continues to erode the economic power of the USA. They could very well discover one day that their military might is all they have left. Who's to say they won't suddenly decide to capitalize on their advantage before it evaporates?
Which country do you believe could possibly qualify for such an impossible task?
That’s a pretty big aside.
You could've said that exact same thing about the US just 10 years ago when Obama was president.
Allow them to have nukes, who are you lol
[0] Yes, the UK can fire them without US approval, but the actual hardware is maintained and supported by the USA, and they have to be shipped to the USA regularly for maintenance. If the USA decided that the UK should not have nukes, there's not a lot the UK could do about it, the Trident system would have to be scrapped entirely and replaced with some completely different system. Which the UK doesn't really have the capability to do and it would cost a fortune to acquire that capability.
So yes, if the US withdrew support then the existing nuclear program would be pretty fucked for a while, but the US couldn't unilaterally de-nuclearise the UK.
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?
We can't give Ukraine their nukes back because they were decommissioned (and they were rotting at the time), but there'd be no nation more deserving.
Corollary: no individual nation is able to shoulder such responsibilities.
Surrendered.
Despite its problems, the UK is still a sixth largest economy, a cultural powerhouse (how many Hollywood actors are British?), with a lot of soft power, a capable and currently renewed nuclear arsenal (Astraea and Dreadnought are on track), a globe-spanning network of alliances (from AUKUS to Japan deploying to the UK first time in their history to being one of the closest and most unwavering allies for Ukraine), and a constitutionally healthy and adaptive system of government (we just passed another constitutional change and it's not a big deal, we can just do that).
Frankly, this meme stinks of projection. Going from a shining city on a hill to a place where public executions by state backed paramilitaries are just another partisan talking point, that starts Special Military Operations with no plan or goal, that threatens to annex territory of its allies in about a year is an achievement. I guess projecting this free fall on the UK makes living through it more bearable.
Why would you use the economy to defend the UK's status and then point to a bunch of non economy stuff to try to knock the US? The US is the largest and has been for awhile. Isn't that what mattered to you? Plus, pointing out that a bunch of prominent UK residents leave to participate in US industry hardly seems a point in favor of how well the UK is doing.
The "prominent UK residents" don't "leave" the UK. Benedict Cumberbatch lives in London, despite constantly starring in Hollywood films. It's an example of the UK culturally punching way above its weight in proportion to its population.
Again, you just used the present size of a nation's economy to argue that a nation isn't in decline when someone was talking about the ongoing decline of a nations politics, economy, and culture. It seems odd to me you're able to, for other countries, understand that the present moment can be viewed with both historical and likely future context.
>The "prominent UK residents" don't "leave" the UK. Benedict Cumberbatch lives...
Plenty move, but that wasn't the point I think anyone was making. If I wanted to say they were moving to the US, I would have said that instead of "leave to participate in US industry". And all of that ignores that the original commenter was talking about the decline of British media rather than saying that they're aren't talented Brits. It's not like they they're saying the UK had a bunch of great actors ten years ago and they suddenly died. Them working in American industry rather than the UK producing it own is, I'm pretty sure, the sort of point the commenter you replied to was making.
I feel like we're reading different posts.
[0] https://www.madisontrust.com/information-center/visualizatio...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
An example in microcosm: a local village suffered road flooding due to failed maintenance of water pipes. Our rent-seeking privatized water company effected the minimum repair required by regulation.
The next section of old pipe burst almost immediately, flooding the road further for most of January, utterly destroying the surface, through the road base in many places. Even at a crawl it's difficult to avoid tyre damage.
Over a month later the water repairs were effected. Then shortly after some local roadwork notification signs were put up.
Those expecting repairs to the moonscaped road were disappointed: instead the relentless bureaucracy of British local government installed traffic calming measures on top of the broken road, as the work had already been booked and could not be stopped by any means as even basic roadworks lack any degree of dynamism in their execution.
All this still needs to be made right. These small scale failures will compound and compound until the entire state is drowned in the consequence of its incompetence.
Your example only compares against the UK past.
It has zero relevancy because it says nothing about relative change against other countries.
Anecdotally for the USA, I went to New Orleans last year, and I was stunned at the rotting infrastructure. Coming from New Zealand, the USA seems to be trying to copy the trajectory of Argentina.
Then again, I see serious problems in my hometown (e.g. sewage treatment plant) and country (e.g. big problems with rail, ferry, air, electricity, 3 waters). Apart from the societal issues that it seems all countries are facing.
I also live within a floodzone. There is a high probability I will learn how we deal with flooding in the future (different flooding - shallower and lacking the winds and hopefully better pre-planning for avoiding harm).
> everything looked brand new
Absolutely not, to me.
And the conversation is regarding infrastructure. A bunch of Christchurch infrastructure is brand new.
But the rant is entirely counterfactual. Britain is a very rich country with beautiful and recovering nature, a healthy and educated population, one of the more capable armies in Europe, a functioning deterrent, and a relatively healthy political system. We just got two new parties becoming credible threats to the "main" two (regardless of the parties' views, the political competition itself is a much healthier situation than the American duopoly)! We just abolished hereditary peers, which is a constitutional change (and it can just be done)! Below the everyday media noise, we're doing alright as a democracy.
I really hope this wasn't posted by an American....
Britain does not have colonies. You might be thinking of the British overseas territory but the total population of those islands is less than 400,000
Just 2 months ago Italy tried to ban domains globally too https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46555760
Otherwise each company, everywhere in the world, no matter how small, has to follow the arbitrary demands of every nation state? How does that make any sense?
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.
Even if you agree that this should be done for the currently stated reasons, the precedent is horrifying.
To quote Snowden, we're building the infrastructure of mass surveillance. (And then hoping nobody's going to come along and use it.)
We grant fully that it’s a slippery slope, ofc. But is the end of the slope in mind at the outset? Maybe, but not certainly.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2025/09/09/people-a...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB3WVygAM8I
Looking through that article, one of the examples is "The wife of a conservative politician was sentenced to 31 months in prison for what police said was an unacceptable post."
But if you dig into what happened - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3wkzgpjxvo
"The wife of a Conservative councillor has been jailed for 31 months after calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire."
This is pretty clear incitement to violence.
The UK has problems, but it's not very useful to throw all of these cases together to make a big number, it really rather undermines the point.
Are you talking about the same UK where people get harassed by the police for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-crime_hate_incident ?
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.
With "protected political speech" being defined as which flavour of the established, incompetent elite you prefer this year.
People have been arrested in the UK for holding blank signs within vicinity of Palestine marches. People have been arrested over protesting Charles' coronation. To say nothing of thousands of people arrested every year over tweets.
Political speech is basically criminalised in the UK at this point. This is not an establishment worth any of our respect.
Got a source on this one?
Supporting Palestine in the UK has never been illegal. Supporting the specific group "Palestine Action" has been as they were for a while a proscribed terrorist organisation due to what was (IMHO) some property crimes committed against defense contractors by some of their members. Totally wrong, and has now been struck down in the courts, but saying "you can't support palestine" is also wrong.
> Thousands of people arrested every year over tweets.
The source I saw on this one had clear examples of violent threats and calls to set buildings full of people on fire, so I'm not sure this is clear either.
The line is quite thin and ambiguous though. If they want to get someone they will and find that various remarks “encourage violence”.
Almost any opinion that isn't nice can be argued to encourage violence.
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.
Not sure how often that happens coming to the UK, yet.
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.
Of course AFAIK this can happen pretty much everywhere at this point so your only hope is being a citizen of a country that doesn't allow it for locals (such as the US) and then not traveling. Or wipe your devices prior to traveling.
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.
You are entirely incorrect.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/17/politics/retired-cop-jailed-o...
Of course, "touch grass" works just as well.
Curious time to complain about the UK doing this (*points broadly eastwards*)
Ofcom is probably full of non technical people who have been given a specific set of (stupid) instructions including that if its on the internet, its a product being sold to the UK.
If America introduced a law like this, especially the strong, late-aughts, pre-Trump America, I bet most countries would just cave in, just like most caved in when copyright and AML/KYC laws were concerned. Hell, Swicerland basically abolished anonymous bank accounts, something which the country was famous for, just because the US wanted them to. I don't think we'll see a similar resolution here.
It is also accepted that enforcement can be an issue if the law is an absurd overreach (like the UK criminalising smoking in the streets of Paris).
They learned from the US
They made the whole world British so the British laws applied everywhere.
Oh well, the uncensored web from my NL VPN still looks the same.
We can move much faster then they can legislate.
Not only is this enforceable, it has been enforced, and people have been assassinated without charge for this crime.
The size of ones military expenditure does not determine whether a foreign government can kill you, specifically.
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!
What, Ofcom is trying to restrict viewing outside UK?
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.
We were too small and bent, also US customers were 30% of the total which made it a non choice.
The kind of vague phrasing that makes one immediately suspicious. What were these 'several countries'? Iran? Cuba? North Korea?
> also US customers were 30% of the total which made it a non choice
You're literally operating in the US then. It's obvious US laws would apply if you're serving US customers.
It doesn't matter which those were, we were obliged to respect laws of the European country we were incorporated, not US ones.
Laws are not a buffet. You choose to do business in a market, you've opted to be regulated in that market.
You are absolutely free to sell your services to whoever you want, but the US is equally free to refuse to allow you to operate domestically if you're breaking their laws (and otherwise make your life difficult if you e.g. rely on US banking infrastructure). If you want to do business in Iran, don't expect to do business in the US.
You choose to do business in a jurisdiction, you bind yourself to their laws. That means all laws, not just ones you like, or think that are relevant to your business. Laws are not a buffet.
Don't do business in jurisdictions where you feel like you cannot comply with domestic law. No one is requiring you to do business in the US. People choose to do business in the US so they can profit from US customers, and that's totally fine, but doesn't come with some magical immunity to US law.
1. This isn't about business but charges. There's no way in hell US can e.g. prosecute non us citizens from trading with Cuba e.g. the embargo applies to US individuals and companies. The rest of the world, e.g. European countries, have normal relations with Cuba and nobody gives two damns about the embargo.
2. The same thing happens in reverse and applies to US companies doing business overseas.
Anyone who sells to my enemies is my enemy. You yourself can be subject to embargoes.
Francesca Albanese cannot do banking with banks from her own country because the US said so. Read: third parties that have relations with the US are barred from doing business with you or else risk being blacklisted too.
https://english.elpais.com/international/2025-12-28/the-comp...
Sure it can. It can do whatever it wants in its domestic courts. Turkmenistan can prosecute you and me right now for failure to pay insufficient deference to dear leader. Whether this impacts us in any way is the actual question. We presumably do not want to do business in Turkmenistan. But the OP wants to do business in the US. Ergo, the OP is subject to US law, irrespective of what he thinks US law should look like or what its limits ought to be.
OP doesn't have to do business in the US at all and be completely and utterly untouched by US law - he won't be extradited anywhere unless the offence in question is also an offence in his own country, which as you point out, the Cuban embargo (etc) isn't. This is how you and I stay safe from the many Turkmenistani indictments hanging over us.
This is not a case of someone bravely standing up for justice and freedom, this is a case of someone wanting to profit from US customers but somehow have total immunity from US law. And I'd respectfully point out that if the countries were reversed, and we were talking about e.g. Russia, the European countries would be apoplectic about anyone doing business there. Imagine a Brazilian company selling drone motors to Russia. Can its executives expect to travel freely through the EU without fear of arrest? Do business in the EU?
You sound like the lunatic president you have thinking that foreign countries are profiting of us, while sending goods and taking pieces of paper in exchange. Or in the world of some economist, my barber profits from me because I got there every two weeks but he never buys anything from me. As if I am not getting a service in exchange!
In any case, since you're unaware, Canada and EU have legislation that prohibits Canadian and European companies from obliging with US embargo of Cuba. That is, I can face criminal charges in Europe or Canada for refusing services to Cuba.
But speaking with you is pointless.
You're the usual case thinking US is an exception to the rules, where it can dictate it's terms beyond its borders and get away with the opposite.
Sleep well.
Uhhh... the person whose company has 30% of its customers in the US. See above.
> You sound like the lunatic president you have
> You're the usual case thinking US is an exception to the rules, where it can dictate it's terms beyond its borders and get away with the opposite.
Cool. I'm not American. I'm literally just quoting International Private Law (aka Conflict of Laws) to you. And I'm doing so while being careful to give other examples from other countries.
I've literally not once said I approve of any of these laws. But this seems to be the difference between you and me - I don't bend the rules to get to outcomes I like. You sell to Cuba, or you sell to the US. Do I like that? No. Is that the law? Yes. One would not be very effective in international business if they failed to realise this kind of thing.
> You're the usual case thinking US is an exception to the rules
And, conversely, I think you're the usual case in trying to make the US a unique big bad, when they're doing absolutely nothing out of the ordinary in this area, and certainly nothing that Europe doesn't constantly do when it regulates for foreigners and foreign businesses trying to interact with or through the EU. (Something the EU does more of, proudly and loudly, than anyone else on Earth.)
Sleep well! (It's the morning here.)
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...
Ofcourse, everybody ( well, outside the UK ) are OK if UK orders UK ISPs blocks sites for their customers.
Another advantage as the other reply has mentioned is that courts have broad authority but must narrow the effect of their rulings to the minimum necessary to address the suit. In this case it would certainly lead to 4Chan being blocked by UK ISPs by order of a UK court. I think even 4Chan would be fine with that.
This is different than 4chan allowing UK viewers to access the website at all.
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.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/judge-rules-ever...
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.
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.
Ofcom has a bad handle on web requests. Clients connect out. 4chan et al aren't pushing their services in anyone in the UK.
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.
If the UK wants to block packets from across the pond, they should (but I hope they don't) do it via a Great Firewall, rather than expecting random foreign websites to do it for them.
Is it “different” then?
Being serious here.
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!
Aliexpress only sends the toys to the Fedx or whatever shipping partners UK uses.
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.
It's kinda voluntary, though, there's no international agreement about this.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICRA_v._Yahoo!
EU doesn't believe in human rights or freedoms.
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.
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.
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.
The US are already playing this game. Can you not see that?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_interventio...
Maduro on the other hand...
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...
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.
Legally speaking, British people are subjects, not citizens.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/contents
> 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_Kingd...
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.
> 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.
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?
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.
For Tiananmen Square substitute Rape Gangs.
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
> top most read article on BBC News right now is yet another public sector cover up
Do you not see a tiny little bit of contradiction here (regardless of your mis-characterisation of the second link)
In hindsight it is dumb to buy random pills and take em.
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?
I’m at +4, so, I’m doubting it’s unreadable…
This comment is comically pointless.
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.
>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.
> 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...
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.
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.
I remember him. Sadly he got evicted in the end. F.
"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.
As has Reddit, Facebook, etc.
Bad things occasionally happening on a platform doesn't make the platform/site inherently bad.
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.
"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
>>>
"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.
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...
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.
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.
It is amazing that these guys don't see the irony of monkeying totaliterian states policies, in term of surveillance and censorship.
There is something bigger at play, and its not US or UK...
Tribalism is awful for societies. There’s a reason Russia put so much effort into amplifying it in the west.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And the UK... each time it delivers there.
But they have no legal basis to fine 4chan.
They are bound by UK law exactly as much as they are bound by Venutian or Mars law.
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.
this isn't true
https://x.com/prestonjbyrne
So it's clearly operating globally.
Country flags are a major feature of the board.
If I offer a service in US I still have to respect US law, it doesn't matter that I'm based in Luxembourg or New Zealand.
The same applies in reverse.
E.g. many US news outlets never cared to implement gdpr and geoblocked European users from accessing their websites.
Mother Britain will be happy to make an example out of them if Uncle Sam doesn't intervene.
CCP "Great Firewall" style.
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.
The UK government has been openly doing this for a couple of years by now.
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.
VPN take up in the UK is around 20-25%
I really hope for all the people in the UK that your country doesn't go down this route.
So the UK plans to fine Parisian bars that serve alcohol to British under-18s in France on holiday?
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?
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.
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.
If the government thinks there are ones and zeros on the internet it’s citizens should not be allowed to see, they should block them from entering the country.
I don't think UK law governs foreign companies' overseas operations based on the nationality of the customer though, no.
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.
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.
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... .
No countries have extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Some countries have a lot of influence over the local jurisdiction outside of their own territory.
The UK doesn't have much influence like that.
But if the UK has any minesweepers, I bet this could all be sorted out with a few phone calls.
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
That was very clearly illegal and has nothing to do with laws.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...
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.
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.
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.
Not at all. But if they do enter, they might find difficulty leaving.
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.
Trump is merely a huge accelerator of an existing trend.
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.
And yes, the choice was still to do business with US in every case, but I can tell you 100% it was far from a crystal clear easy decision and that the camel is breaking.
You can only push so much.
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.
Sure they can. It’s unlikely they can do anything about it though.
OFCOM&co is about overseas data going to you.
You don't need to apply gdpr when serving non European users.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_blocking_in_the_United_Kin...
https://27bslash6.com/overdue.html
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...
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!”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_age_verification_...
Please report to the closest police station
Miniluv
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
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.
There's no way anyone sensible would give over their identity to dodgy websites. It's easier to just pretend to be in a different country.
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.
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.
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...)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71209929/4chan-communit...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_blocking_in_the_United_Kin...
Doesn't really seem like there's an anti-authoritarian party available to us either.
they have literally no power over things outside their own land borders and people are right to tell them to piss off.
[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.
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.
There is not a million school shooters.
That means making it possible for parents to actively block bad websites, and making that hard to circumvent.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
I would bet that some young people will be as reflective and independently minded as you were to integrate the material into their experience and be better off for it. Some (like me, because I was thin-skinned) won't and it will stress them out or traumatize them instead. Does that make them lesser human beings for not being capable of bettering themselves from seeing the unfiltered truth on their own?
For all the benefit of 4chan, and I do say there is some benefit only after having grown into an adult with better critical thinking skills and years of therapy, it self-selects for a certain type of poster capable of lurking enough, following the norms and having a thick skin. Not everyone will clear that bar and it's unreasonable to think that all young people will turn out like yourself having immersed themselves in it. Some could end up wasting a lot of time baited into petty arguments, or worse.
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.
This nonsense, and yet they allow GBNews to keep spewing propaganda and violate almost all broadcast standards that Ofcom is supposed to enforce.
Ofcom has today fined 4chan £450k for not having age checks in place
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47442838
> 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.)
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.
The onus is on the parent to the be parent. Not the tech industry, and especially not the government.
At least we seem to agree the solution lies with better tools for parents.
"proper parental control software" doesn't exist for a lot of the platforms.
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.
You can easily use prosumer routers/firewalls and other parental devices to block content you don't want. Millions of solutions exists and its trivial.
If you don't have the options in your router or OS level settings, you can 100% change the DNS server to Cloudflare's Family DNS, or a number of other family DNS solutions, many of which are offered for free.
You don't have to give your kid everything or nothing. You just have refused to look at the options. This is HN, we should be making tech for our families, investigating solutions!
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_blocking_in_the_United_Kin...
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?
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.
> or requiring Internet Service Providers to block a site in the UK.
Ah, that's what they want.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You need to learn the difference between Europe the continent and the EU the political union. The two are not interchangeable.
The British continued to be European post 2020