Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.com

371–380 of 936 posts

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

#371
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.

Long dead? Within living memory. Britain still has colonies with millions of people in them.

>Britain still has colonies with millions of people in them.

Britain does not have colonies. You might be thinking of the British overseas territory but the total population of those islands is less than 400,000

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

#372
post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to say it, but instead to choose to say something both interesting and directly responsive to the comment you're replying to.

Okay, here goes. You can tell when someone is acting in bad faith when they talk about a law that has been in force and enforced since the 1960s is something new. Of course, "touch grass" works just as well.

Does it?

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

#373

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…

“Parliamentary supremacy means that Parliament can legislate for all persons and all places. If it enacts that smoking in the streets of Paris is an offence, then it is an offence.”(Ivor Jennings)

It is also accepted that enforcement can be an issue if the law is an absurd overreach (like the UK criminalising smoking in the streets of Paris).

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

#374

I mean the 4chan lawyer makes a good point. If you think about it, it's the Internet Service Providers in the UK who choose choose to allow this US content into the UK. Why go after 4chan? The ISPs could just shut down the BGP protocol and set up their own ICANN alternative with their own DNS system which is completely separate from the US one. So it's the UK government's choice to allow this content to the UK, not 4…

No need to change anything, it already exists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_blocking_in_the_United_Kin...

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

#375
post #134

People 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…

I have worked for a company that was threatened by the US to not offer services to several countries or face criminal charges in the US. I'm talking about a saas nothing strange. We were too small and bent, also US customers were 30% of the total which made it a non choice.

> not offer services to several countries

The kind of vague phrasing that makes one immediately suspicious. What were these 'several countries'? Iran? Cuba? North Korea?

> also US customers were 30% of the total which made it a non choice

You're literally operating in the US then. It's obvious US laws would apply if you're serving US customers.

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

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s as if British people belong to their government. Legally speaking, British people are subjects, not citizens.

Then somebody needs to let the government know, because the relevant 1981 act is "[a]n Act to make fresh provision about citizenship and nationality". In that 'British subjects' are a quite limited subset of citizens. Most British people are citizens, not subjects. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/contents

What’s the difference? I’m not knowledgeable enough about English law to parse this

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

#377

It does seem like if the UK wants to do content filtration (blocking noncompliant websites) they will need to own up to it and set up a China-style firewall, rather than hoping they can badger the service providers into doing it for them.

It already exists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_blocking_in_the_United_Kin...

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

#378
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.

This is an entirely delusional twitter-brain take.

Despite its problems, the UK is still a sixth largest economy, a cultural powerhouse (how many Hollywood actors are British?), with a lot of soft power, a capable and currently renewed nuclear arsenal (Astraea and Dreadnought are on track), a globe-spanning network of alliances (from AUKUS to Japan deploying to the UK first time in their history to being one of the closest and most unwavering allies for Ukraine), and a constitutionally healthy and adaptive system of government (we just passed another constitutional change and it's not a big deal, we can just do that).

Frankly, this meme stinks of projection. Going from a shining city on a hill to a place where public executions by state backed paramilitaries are just another partisan talking point, that starts Special Military Operations with no plan or goal, that threatens to annex territory of its allies in about a year is an achievement. I guess projecting this free fall on the UK makes living through it more bearable.

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

#379

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.

You can be arrested for being racist in Brazil

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

#380
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.

> 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.

I really hope this wasn't posted by an American....

Post reply on HN