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…
> 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.
4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
191–200 of 936 posts
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're even allowed to post photos of your cocaine on U.K. websites!
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, https://en.wikipedia.org/…
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#193People 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…
USA doesn't block websites. The FBI will seize domains after some judicial review and a court order. That's about it.
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...
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
4chan send their packets to their ISP, not the UK.
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
USA doesn't block websites. The FBI will seize domains after some judicial review and a court order. That's about it.
And you can use cctlds to bypass this too
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.
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_interventio...
Maduro was not legitimately and democratically elected.
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds so gross. Why do British people tolerate that? It’s as if British people belong to their government.
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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_interventio...
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maduro was not legitimately and democratically elected.
Potato potato. No less legitimate than Trump.
Maduro on the other hand...
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#199People 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…