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

101–110 of 936 posts

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

#101

Post by Scaled »

cubefox wrote: post #67

This part is somewhat surprising to me: > Data shows that nearly 80% of the top 100 pornography sites in the UK now have age checks in place. This means that on average, every day, over 7 million visitors from the UK are accessing pornography services that have deployed age assurance. I would have expected that most people would switch to other pornography sites that don't have age checks rather than doing an age che…

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.

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

#102

Post by nvme0n1p1 »

john_strinlai wrote: post #85
gadders wrote: post #82

If it wasn't for 4Chan, we might never have solved the Haruhi problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpermutation#Lower_bounds,... I used to go on a curated version of 4Chan via Telegram. Yes there is a lot of racism (although it flies in every direction, between every ethnicity you could imagine) but there is also (due to the anonymous nature) some genuinely interesting discussions. I remember one thread about ai…

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.

Replace "4chan" with "humanity in general" and your statement still holds true.

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

#103

Post by FridayoLeary »

vasco wrote: post #11

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.

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.

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

#104

Post by gnfargbl »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #100
gnfargbl wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

UK ISPs do block some domains though.

Which does nothing to block 4chan, because everyone knows what a VPN is and how to get one.

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

#105

Post by john_strinlai »

nvme0n1p1 wrote: post #102
john_strinlai wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Replace "4chan" with "humanity in general" and your statement still holds true.

sure, yeah, the original quote was about a person instead of a website, so that makes sense.

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

#108

Post by refulgentis »

tokyobreakfast wrote: post #37
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…

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.

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?

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

#109

Post by [deleted] »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #45
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.

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 cr…

[deleted]

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

#110

Post by cm2187 »

gnfargbl wrote: post #83
deaddodo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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.

Post reply on HN