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

4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 936 posts

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#41

Post by DroneBetter »

> 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...)

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#42

Post by crtasm »

dijit wrote: post #16

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. Jus…

Is it correct to say the consumer is importing a product when it's aliexpress shipping it to them?

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#43

Post by guelo »

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.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#44

Post by tsukikage »

ceejayoz wrote: post #7
rconti wrote: post #4

> "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?

This is more like the UK fining Parisian bars that courier alcohol to under-18s in the UK .

More like the UK fining US porn publishers for not stopping British kids searching through the hedges in their street

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#45

Post by cjbgkagh »

dijit wrote: post #24
OJFord wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#47

Post by ronsor »

OJFord wrote: post #18
qup wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon is an international corporation with UK-incorporated entities.

That's true but not relevant to the spirit of the point.

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.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#48

Post by dijit »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #35
dijit wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Countries do have laws that apply even when you leave the country. For example, Americans living abroad still have to pay taxes.

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.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#50

Post by cyberclimb »

ecshafer wrote: post #39

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.

How about the EU imposing GDPR restrictions on non-eu companies?
Post reply on HN