Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

alecmuffett.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#121

Post by Arnavion »

4ggr0 wrote: post #65
IlikeKitties wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4chan isn't all /b/ and /pol/. /g/ the technology board can be a very interesting place. And its Members often create technology that absolutely suprises me. Just recently we started an effort to retake the usenet and are actively repopulating alt.cyberpunk.tech with genuine good discussions.

> 4chan isn't all /b/ and /pol/ maybe this is my bias, could very well be. maybe i should give it a 10th chance and browse the more useful boards. i guess /g/ would be a start, do you have other recommendations? i mean i'm open to change my mind. for me 4chan stands for alt-right pipelines, spreading far-right ideology online etc., so i just really have a sour taste in my mouth when thinking about it.

[dead]

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#122

Post by [deleted] »

probably_wrong wrote: post #47
cdfsdsadsa wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW I agree with the intent of the Act, and am generally in favour of a sovereign firewall. Edit: In a nutshell - almost every other transfer of goods and services across national borders is subject to quality standards. Why do we give a pass to a system that allows deep, individualised access to people's personal lives and mental processes?

Right now you're downvoted for expressing an opinion that I believe deserves a deeper discussion. I don't want the government to decide which thoughts I can access and which ones I can't, but I also understand that allowing a foreign power (let's say Russia, although "the US" works just as fine) to freely run undercover propaganda and/or destabilization campaigns without any recourse doesn't look good either. And whi…

[deleted]

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#123

Post by CaptainOfCoit »

tasuki wrote: post #35

> The Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this expressly includes conducting investigations into, and imposing penalties for, non-compliance by providers of online services with their duties under the Act. […] The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect I don't see anything wrong here: Sure, Ofcom can have th…

> The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect

It also continues like this:

> This does not mean that the Act extends to all use of in-scope services globally. […] “The duties extend only to the design, operation and use of the service in the UK and, for duties expressed to apply in relation to ‘users’, as it affects the UK users of the service”

Wouldn't this mean that the Act only applies to services explicitly design/targeting UK users/visitors? So if you're building a general service for no particular residents/citizens, the Act doesn't apply to you? Or am I misunderstanding something?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#124

Post by ceejayoz »

epanchin wrote: post #11

Is there a solution where we can compel parental control to be enabled by default on kids phones? That would seem to be least intrusive option. Using the internet in the UK/EU is such a horrible experience, every cookie pop-up is a reminder how badly thought out these rules are.

> Using the internet in the UK/EU is such a horrible experience, every cookie pop-up is a reminder how badly thought out these rules are.

That's what the advertising-dependent implementers who deliberately made it shittier than necessary (stuff like "you have to decline each of our 847 ad partners individually") want you to think, at least. It's mostly malicious compliance.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#125

Post by Hamuko »

CaptainOfCoit wrote: post #123
tasuki wrote: post #35

> The Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this expressly includes conducting investigations into, and imposing penalties for, non-compliance by providers of online services with their duties under the Act. […] The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect I don't see anything wrong here: Sure, Ofcom can have th…

> The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect It also continues like this: > This does not mean that the Act extends to all use of in-scope services globally. […] “The duties extend only to the design, operation and use of the service in the UK and, for duties expressed to apply in relation to ‘users’, as it affects the UK users of the service” Wouldn't this mean that the Act only applies…

>Wouldn't this mean that the Act only applies to services explicitly design/targeting UK users/visitors?

Clearly not considering that there's nothing in 4chan that would make it explicitly targeted towards the UK. Unless Ofcom is saying something and doing the opposite.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#126

Post by Bender »

IlikeKitties wrote: post #9

I bought a 4chan pass today just to support the effort. If there's ever a hornets nest you don't want to fuck with it's 4chan and i can't imagine a better poking stick than ofcom.

If there's ever a hornets nest you don't want to fuck with it's 4chan

That certainly used to be the case pre-2012. All the former hactivists have long since left. marriage, kids, real life, etc... Now it's mostly handfuls of edgy boys on cell phones in school and 4chan-GPT creating and responding to threads. I wish I were wrong. The site went mostly dead for about two weeks when USAID was defunded and had to shift funding sources then all the usual re-re-re-re-re-posted topics in /g/ returned. Some of them are on this site too ... inb4 they reply. Adding to this now the general public have the real names, IP addresses and locations of all the moderators so they are less likely to participate in doxxing.

There was a quote, "4chan is where smart people go to act stupid, facebook/reddit is where stupid people go to act smart". That probably needs to be updated.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#127

Post by CaptainOfCoit »

littlestymaar wrote: post #83
jojobas wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case is more like UK bans selling cigarettes and tries going after a Parisian tobacconist.

Which doesn't sounds so absurd if you replace “tobacco” with “cocaine” and “Parisian” with “Colombian”.

Still sounds absurd to me.

> UK bans selling cocaine in the UK and tries going after a Colombian cocaine dealer in Columbia.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#128

Post by energy123 »

probably_wrong wrote: post #47
cdfsdsadsa wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW I agree with the intent of the Act, and am generally in favour of a sovereign firewall. Edit: In a nutshell - almost every other transfer of goods and services across national borders is subject to quality standards. Why do we give a pass to a system that allows deep, individualised access to people's personal lives and mental processes?

Right now you're downvoted for expressing an opinion that I believe deserves a deeper discussion. I don't want the government to decide which thoughts I can access and which ones I can't, but I also understand that allowing a foreign power (let's say Russia, although "the US" works just as fine) to freely run undercover propaganda and/or destabilization campaigns without any recourse doesn't look good either. And whi…

Something needs to be done. The outcomes are manifestly bad. I can't take the pro-freedom intellectual argument seriously unless it's coupled with a suite of pragmatic solutions to the negative side effects I am observing with my own senses. The intellectual walls of text just aren't papering over that reality.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#129

Post by piker »

Hamuko wrote: post #125
CaptainOfCoit wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect It also continues like this: > This does not mean that the Act extends to all use of in-scope services globally. […] “The duties extend only to the design, operation and use of the service in the UK and, for duties expressed to apply in relation to ‘users’, as it affects the UK users of the service” Wouldn't this mean that the Act only applies…

> Wouldn't this mean that the Act only applies to services explicitly design/targeting UK users/visitors? Clearly not considering that there's nothing in 4chan that would make it explicitly targeted towards the UK. Unless Ofcom is saying something and doing the opposite.

4chan.co.uk value decimated by this analysis

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#130

Post by kemayo »

CaptainOfCoit wrote: post #127
littlestymaar wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which doesn't sounds so absurd if you replace “tobacco” with “cocaine” and “Parisian” with “Colombian”.

Still sounds absurd to me. > UK bans selling cocaine in the UK and tries going after a Colombian cocaine dealer in Columbia.

I'll neutrally note that this is why Trump is blowing up Venezuelan fishing boats currently: https://www.npr.org/2025/10/15/nx-s1-5575699/why-is-the-trum...

(I'll less-neutrally note that this is also absurd, and probably criminal.)

Post reply on HN