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

271–280 of 936 posts

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

#271

Post by 15155 »

markdown wrote: post #267
Spivak wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well they technically do, parliamentary sovereignty means that the UK can, "legislate to ban smoking on the streets of Paris." There are no limits to what laws they can write, even ones that are out of their jurisdiction, absurd, or unenforceable.

The U.S. asserts the right to prosecute anyone, anywhere, who provides material support to any group they label as a terrorist organization. Not only is this enforceable, it has been enforced, and people have been assassinated without charge for this crime.

It helps when you spend trillions annually on your military. Might makes right.

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

#272

Post by epolanski »

cyberclimb wrote: post #50
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?

They only apply to your business in Europe.

You don't need to apply gdpr when serving non European users.

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

#273

Post by croes »

15155 wrote: post #249
croes wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally. They learned from the US

The United Kingdom's once-relevant hegemony existed centuries before the United States.

There is the difference.

They made the whole world British so the British laws applied everywhere.

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

#274

Post by tim333 »

diego_sandoval wrote: post #229
EmbarrassedHelp wrote: post #184

Ofcom is currently threatening a Canadian forum that exists to help people with depression. Ofcom claims that geoblocking blocking the UK is "insufficient": > I've also gone back to Ofcom explicitly telling them the UK was now geoblocked (twice now) and I received a response that this was insufficient. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1rk690v/i_ru... Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply gl…

I think anyone running a website should avoid visiting the UK from now on.

The UK I don't think has arrested anyone for running a website.

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

#275

Post by patrickmcnamara »

throwawaytea wrote: post #259
diego_sandoval wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think anyone running a website should avoid visiting the UK from now on.

A gf asked to go on a trip to England/Ireland and I told her I will go to Brazil or Colombia before I go to the UK. Im not going to risk getting in trouble because I made a post online or discussed immigration or trans people in the wrong way according to them.

What is the HN way to say "touch grass"?

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

#276

Post by maxlybbert »

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.

The US can be very creative about when its jurisdiction applies ( https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/94-166 ).

Manuel Noriega and “el Chapo” Guzman were both convicted of crimes they committed outside the US but that caused other people to commit crimes inside the US.

Traveling to countries for child sex abuse is illegal and severely punished, although it appears that the law is about the traveling with intent, and not (officially) about the actions that take place overseas: https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ceos/extraterritor... .

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

#277

Post by markdown »

ImJamal wrote: post #198
3rodents wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Potato potato. No less legitimate than Trump.

Trump was validly elected. He won the required number of electors in the electoral college in the 2016 and 2024 elections. Maduro on the other hand...

Didn't Trump admit that Musk fixed it for him?

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

#278

Post by jimnotgym »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #220
michaelt wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who think incest porn should be banned are loud and proud in their beliefs. They’ll put up posters, tell their MPs, respond to surveys, and appear in political debates. The people who support incest porn are a lot less talkative. As such our windsock government with no strong beliefs does what the survey says is most popular.

The people who think incest porn should be banned are loud and proud in their beliefs. They’ll put up posters, tell their MPs, respond to surveys, and appear in political debates. The people who support incest porn are a lot less talkative. I think there is an argument to made the pornography in general is harmful. But to single out one single type of porn strikes me as... very odd. Maybe politicians can list, explic…

I guess you have to draw a line somewhere, if you are going to legislate against porn you are going to have to decide what is and what is not ok

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

#280

Post by drnick1 »

3rodents wrote: post #174
DevKoala wrote: post #158

Earlier 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...

So what? The only reason the U.S. did this is because it can. What will the UK do when 4chan tells its online regulator to go suck a d***, send in James Bond?
Post reply on HN