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

351–360 of 936 posts

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

#351

Post by IshKebab »

estimator7292 wrote: post #320
3rodents wrote: post #146

Earlier 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.

The user mails you a box with a note that says "1kg of 4chan packets pls", and a prepaid return label to an address local to you . You put the packets in the box and kick it down the street to its "destination". Job done as far as you know. The place you sent the box then repacks it and mails it to the UK. Somehow the UK thinks that you and only you have broken the law.

Not actually how TCP/IP works though.

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

#352

Post by TeapotNotKettle »

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,…

“Burn old fella burn”, felt like political speech - but that didn’t work out so well.

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

#354

Post by urbandw311er »

observationist wrote: post #318
15155 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

It’s kind of sad to read your arrogant and xenophobic rantings. I’m not sure you’re really down for the sort of inclusive and open minded discussion that normally takes place here.

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

#355

Post by bethekidyouwant »

roysting wrote: post #284
agilob wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally. Just 2 months ago Italy tried to ban domains globally too https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46555760

It’s really kind of unfortunate that people ignore the fact that the ruling powers seem to always follow the same MO, yet everyone falls for it over and over again; first they go after the dregs that they’ve made beyond the pale for pearl clutching polite company, e.g., I think over a year ago, when the German government first went after Gab followed by something like, if not Ofcom itself. I don’t recall the outcome…

“Vpn” blocking is a game pf cat and mouse, not an absolute .

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

#356

Post by Dylan16807 »

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…

What's especially silly is effectively deciding the legality based on the dialog.

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

#357

Post by jdkee »

tim333 wrote: post #274
diego_sandoval wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The police in the UK have arrested more than 12,000 citizens for online speech.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2025/09/09/people-a...

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

#358

Post by 3rodents »

stinkbeetle wrote: post #350
3rodents wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 spec…

Like I said, it is a spectrum. You draw the line at physical violence, an entirely arbitrary line, whereas the U.K. goes further and continues to emotional violence.

And before you argue that there is no such thing as emotional violence: do you agree that some emotional harm can be worse than some physical harm? I'd much rather be punched than subjected to the worst emotional trauma I've experienced in my life.

> 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.

I'm not going to defend U.K. laws but it is patently absurd to say something like this is in the context of a conversation about U.S. vs. U.K. free speech laws when the U.S. courts allow schools to ban certain books because of "protecting feelings of people who could just choose to not read, listen, or get themselves worked up about it". Heaven forbid a Florida student learns about homosexuality, won't anyone think of the parents?

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

#360

Post by towledev »

roysting wrote: post #284
agilob wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally. Just 2 months ago Italy tried to ban domains globally too https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46555760

It’s really kind of unfortunate that people ignore the fact that the ruling powers seem to always follow the same MO, yet everyone falls for it over and over again; first they go after the dregs that they’ve made beyond the pale for pearl clutching polite company, e.g., I think over a year ago, when the German government first went after Gab followed by something like, if not Ofcom itself. I don’t recall the outcome…

The fact that unsympathetic targets are the first to be targeted need not be viewed as strategic. Other targets would be defended, which is a reason not to target them. Unsympathetic targets lack defenses and are therefore most likely to be targeted, all other things being equal.

We grant fully that it’s a slippery slope, ofc. But is the end of the slope in mind at the outset? Maybe, but not certainly.

Post reply on HN