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

341–350 of 936 posts

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

#341

Post by aincodle »

DroneBetter wrote: post #41

> 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 t…

Probably a significant part of this is people experiencing friction in trying to access this, realising that they don't actually need to consume pornography, and having this break the cycle of compulsion. Which is the most positive outcome really.

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

#342

Post by consp »

drnick1 wrote: post #326
observationist wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so slowly. They've gone from a more or less respectable smaller country to more or less politically, culturally, and economically irrelevant in less than 10 years. I even question whether it's rational to allow them to have nukes; they should probably be required to give them up to some country that has a shot at remaining a stable and predictable geopolitical entity over the next century.

The UK has been declining for at least 50 years, it isn't a new phenomenon. It's only really relevant culturally; after all EU countries are forced to speak English or they wouldn't be able to communicate, even after the UK's departure from the Union and some unsuccessful attempts at increasing the place of French.

While it's the defacto public language (and the one of the required languages). These days all EU communication is done though either the translation service or governmental variants of it making it pretty much irrelevant due to most official languages being served (there seem to be some exceptions but they are minor in the grand scheme of things).

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

#343

Post by tredre3 »

15155 wrote: post #248
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…

> Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally. The cries of a long-since-dead empire slowly fading into geopolitical irrelevance.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of a screaming eagle spreading freedom.

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

#345

Post by wrongwrong111 »

otherme123 wrote: post #213
oliwarner wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if a Brit comes to your country and buys cocaine from you, in person, you wouldn't expect to be convicted as a dealer in the UK. Ofcom has a bad handle on web requests . Clients connect out. 4chan et al aren't pushing their services in anyone in the UK.

It is easier than that: in Germany for example swastikas are forbidden. But they don't prosecute or fine web pages served in other countries. Or books for that matter. In some countries communist symbology is prohibited, yet they don't fine US web pages for having them. And don't forget the Great Firewall: China blocks pages, and get along with some webs to tune what they serve. But you can publish Tiananmen massacre…

This isn't strictly true, major magazines like Der Spiegel can use it for 'satire' or some such nonsense, it's basically at the whim of those in power as CJ Hopkins learned, his satirical use resulted in him being perversely punished, but state aligned magazines get a pass.

EU doesn't believe in human rights or freedoms.

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

#346

Post by nemomarx »

philipov wrote: post #324
observationist wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so slowly. They've gone from a more or less respectable smaller country to more or less politically, culturally, and economically irrelevant in less than 10 years. I even question whether it's rational to allow them to have nukes; they should probably be required to give them up to some country that has a shot at remaining a stable and predictable geopolitical entity over the next century.

> some country that has a shot at remaining a stable and predictable geopolitical entity over the next century. Which country do you believe could possibly qualify for such an impossible task?

China's probably making the best argument for it now.

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

#347

Post by Dylan16807 »

Reason077 wrote: post #332
throwawaytea wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> "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." This is a mis-truth which has been spread by Joe Rogan and his ilk. Political speech is very much protected in UK law. You won't get in "trouble" if you make posts against immigration or trans people. J.K. Rowling and Ricky Gervais certainly haven't been locked up. Yes,…

> You won't get in "trouble" if you make posts against immigration or trans people.

Not to say anyone would actually get in trouble for just some opinion posts, but I don't know why you went with "against" here, I think "for" is the more likely one to make the current UK (or US) government upset.

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

#348

Post by andrewflnr »

philipov wrote: post #324
observationist wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so slowly. They've gone from a more or less respectable smaller country to more or less politically, culturally, and economically irrelevant in less than 10 years. I even question whether it's rational to allow them to have nukes; they should probably be required to give them up to some country that has a shot at remaining a stable and predictable geopolitical entity over the next century.

> some country that has a shot at remaining a stable and predictable geopolitical entity over the next century. Which country do you believe could possibly qualify for such an impossible task?

One or more of the Nordics.

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

#349

Post by tacticalturtle »

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.

> Laws apply to actions in the country, they’re not based on citizenship.

According to what? Laws can be whatever a country says, so long as they have the mechanism to enforce it.

See: the US using special forces to kidnap Maduro

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

#350

Post by stinkbeetle »

3rodents wrote: post #252
anigbrowl wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a meaningless standard since anyone can claim they were alarmed or distressed and there's no way to invalidate such a subjective claim. I can say I'm alarmed by your comment, does that mean it's valid for Ofcom to fine you?

Again, that's not what the law states. The law is not broken when someone is alarmed or distressed by a comment. The law is broken if you post something that is "likely or intending to" which is not judged by the victim. If you walk into a police station in England and tell them that this comment on Hacker News alarmed and distressed you, it doesn't matter, it is up to the legal system to judge my intent, i.e: whethe…

That's a horrific law. Criticizing certain religions and institutions are likely to offend many people. Criticizing a politician or criminal or bureaucrat is quite likely to cause distress to them and their supporters.

> The go-to example of the limits of free speech in context of the U.S. legal system is "Shouting fire in a crowded theater". The U.K. laws are the same in principle but a little further along the spectrum.

They are completely different in principle. The principle in the US is preventing the inciting of violence or a situation that could cause physical injury to others. In the UK it has become about protecting feelings of people who could just choose to not read, listen, or get themselves worked up about it.

Post reply on HN