Earlier quoted context omitted.
The USA has been doing this with VISA and MC since about forever.
Do you have a source for the USA pressuring VISA and MC?
IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
41–50 of 418 posts
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#42I don't really understand the concern. The UK objects to suicide forums and American operators of suicide forums are protected by the First Amendment of extradition to the UK. So if you want to operate a suicide forum from America, just don't travel to the UK and you're okay.
> suicide forums are protected by the First Amendment Are they? Is all speech protected? If so, how do you prosecute people who leak secrets?
> Are they?
Yes
> Is all speech protected?
No
> how do you prosecute people who leak secrets?
See above
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#43When a country transitions from manufacturing to services, it ends up trying to export its legal system.
One of the big things I've been wondering about the decision of the Anglosphere to all switch to a service economy: why would you do that when your population is both smaller and dumber than the populations of other countries? The UK (nor the US) has no advantage in providing services, all it can do is demand that other people be prevented from providing them.
You're the smartest, most clever, most physically fit, but why does nobody else seem to realize it?
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#44The absolute confidence Ofcom has in its ability to impose laws on US citizens is kind of strange. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Maybe in 2028 we get a president who is willing to let US citizens be extradited based on laws like this.
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#45the bravado makes for some great irony. worrying and feeling ultra-superior about the UK government, while letting the tiktok ban and forced sale go through unchallenged. altogether, if you dont care about following this UK law, whats the need to carr what the UK government does? just dont go there or do business with people who care about the UK government. same as US sanctions and secondary sanctions. the UK at lea…
> worrying and feeling ultra-superior about the UK government, while letting the tiktok ban and forced sale go through unchallenged.
And more to the point, many US states passing or attempting to pass laws which aren't all that different to the UKs OSA. Mississippi's version is in some ways even more onerous to enforce as it requires social networks to age-check all of their users, not just those who want to access adult or "harmful" content. Bluesky notably went along with the OSA but considered Mississippi's demands to be over the line and geoblocked them instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_age_verification_...
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#46When content involves self-harm or illegal activity, the discussion isn’t just about geolocation, it’s about platform responsibility, user safety, and effective remediation. Striking the balance between free expression and preventing real harm is why platforms use content policy teams, abuse reporting, and multidisciplinary responses (moderation + outreach + law enforcement where warranted).
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#47> The primary one is that the notion of a “UK based IP” is nonsense. Geolocation databases work by figuring out where people log in from and only after doing a lot of pattern recognition do those addresses get associated with that location. I support the cause, but I don't think that's true. RIPE, the RIR responsible for UK, makes available a list of allocations per country. For UK: https://stat.ripe.net/data/country…
Yeah, geo-IP is not perfect, but it's not built on pure guessing like the author implies.
Yeh it's the sub-country data that's often bad, not the national stuff.
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#48> They’re definitely not treating it like a public safety matter, where they know how to reach us and know that I generally respond within the hour. It's been exceedingly obvious but it's nice to know that Ofcom never thought that anyone would bother to fight back. This is clearly not about public safety but about controlling American corporations. Parliamentary forces seem to be directly suborning this corruption.
> This is clearly [...] about controlling American corporations
Not exactly. On the surface, it's about kowtowing to pearl-clutching UK NGOs that are empowered by Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch's hysterical tabloids; and underneath, the real agenda is about restricting the influence of unsanctioned sites that could influence UK discourse - influence that established UK press barons (like the Murdochs, Lebedev, etc) want to keep very much to themselves.
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#49The most frustrating part here is that this car crash of a policy had cross party support so there wasn’t even a way for UK people like me to vote against it.
Even in Reform, I get the sense that Zia Yusuf was the only person campaigning seriously against it. Going on a one man crusade to force Farage to criticise it and put fully repealing the act on their manifesto.
It was a Reform politician who championed it in: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0004...
WITH A RAP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ql6tGu9aWg
Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act
#50I don't really understand the concern. The UK objects to suicide forums and American operators of suicide forums are protected by the First Amendment of extradition to the UK. So if you want to operate a suicide forum from America, just don't travel to the UK and you're okay.
First of all, I anal and also this is more of a question than a statement but a us person could travel to a country x and that x could send this us person to a UK prison? I don't know if doing so would be legal but when the rubber hits the road, each country x is technically sovereign and does not have to honor the first amendment of the US constitution. So even if it might be frowned upon to extradite foreign (US) n…
Extradition of a foreign citizen to a third country is not a simple matter, diplomatically speaking. The US might not have the hegemony it enjoyed 20-30 years ago, but it certainly has plenty of sway.
When it's a matter of drug charges or other obviously criminal activity, the US embassy and diplomats don't normally raise a fuss, but for something like this where the person made first amendment protected speech in the US? That'd definitely raise all kinds of hell.