[dead]
4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
431–440 of 936 posts
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#432Earlier quoted context omitted.
At first I took the comment about transferring nukes as a bit of a joke, but you make a fair point. Let Iceland have em!
Greenland can make a competing bid on the basis of a pressing need.
That's one that I didn't have on my bingo card for 2026 but it is funny to contemplate.
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#433Earlier quoted context omitted.
China's probably making the best argument for it now.
China's wot?
I don't personally like their government but at this point they certainly have the appearance of long term social and political stability. More than most western countries for the time being.
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#434Earlier 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…
Just to clarify for casual readers: there’s no blanket ban on swastikas in Germany. You can use it for satire or historical reasons. You’re going to find a lot of swastikas on the German Wikipedia for example.
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#435If it wasn't for 4Chan, we might never have solved the Haruhi problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpermutation#Lower_bounds,... I used to go on a curated version of 4Chan via Telegram. Yes there is a lot of racism (although it flies in every direction, between every ethnicity you could imagine) but there is also (due to the anonymous nature) some genuinely interesting discussions. I remember one thread about ai…
there is a great clickhole headline that your comment reminds me of "Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point" 4chan has produced some hilarious/interesting stuff, and they have also driven people to suicide. i suppose it is up to everyone individually to make the value judgement there.
> and they have also driven people to suicide
As has Reddit, Facebook, etc.
Bad things occasionally happening on a platform doesn't make the platform/site inherently bad.
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This isn't about business but charges. There's no way in hell US can e.g. prosecute non us citizens from trading with Cuba Sure it can. It can do whatever it wants in its domestic courts. Turkmenistan can prosecute you and me right now for failure to pay insufficient deference to dear leader. Whether this impacts us in any way is the actual question. We presumably do not want to do business in Turkmenistan. But the…
[flagged]
> Who's profiting from us customers?
Uhhh... the person whose company has 30% of its customers in the US. See above.
> You sound like the lunatic president you have
> You're the usual case thinking US is an exception to the rules, where it can dictate it's terms beyond its borders and get away with the opposite.
Cool. I'm not American. I'm literally just quoting International Private Law (aka Conflict of Laws) to you. And I'm doing so while being careful to give other examples from other countries.
I've literally not once said I approve of any of these laws. But this seems to be the difference between you and me - I don't bend the rules to get to outcomes I like. You sell to Cuba, or you sell to the US. Do I like that? No. Is that the law? Yes. One would not be very effective in international business if they failed to realise this kind of thing.
> You're the usual case thinking US is an exception to the rules
And, conversely, I think you're the usual case in trying to make the US a unique big bad, when they're doing absolutely nothing out of the ordinary in this area, and certainly nothing that Europe doesn't constantly do when it regulates for foreigners and foreign businesses trying to interact with or through the EU. (Something the EU does more of, proudly and loudly, than anyone else on Earth.)
Sleep well! (It's the morning here.)
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#437[dead]
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#438Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally. The cries of a long-since-dead empire slowly fading into geopolitical irrelevance.
I didn't see it that way. It seems like NGOs and IGOs have been pushing for internet restrictions for a long time. There has suddenly been a push for age restrictions allegedly because of abuse material. This happens annually. Some international group claims there needs to be something draconian abolishing encryption, or some other privacy invading measure to stop child abuse and help security. The laws are 1000s of…
> It seems like NGOs and IGOs have been pushing for internet restrictions for a long time. There has suddenly been a push for age restrictions allegedly because of abuse material. This happens annually.
we’re seeing some good evidence the most recent pushes were secretly funded and directly written by meta, the corporation. [0][1]
according to the link in there,
> Rep. Kim Carver (R-Bossier City), the sponsor of Louisiana's HB-570, publicly confirmed that a Meta lobbyist brought the legislative language directly to her.
and they’ve put as much as 2 billion dollars into it. and yes, that’s billion, with a B.
corporations openai, meta, and google were absolutely backing the push for the age verification bill in california and ohio. [2][3][4]
[0] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/reddit-user-uncovers-beh...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47361235
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45244049
[3] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/13/california-advances...
[4] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/meta-google-back-differe...
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#439Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is relevant. There's a material difference between shipping material overseas and shipping it (and handling it) within the destination country. If someone mails $ProhibitedItem at a USPS to the UK, then it's the job of local UK police and/or customs to reject the parcel if it is prohibited. It's the UK's problem, de facto if not de jure, because the sender is out of reach. If someone with a UK subsidiary and local…
And on an electronic delivery, is a great firewall the equivalent of customs? And therfore the only way to enforce sovereignty?
Practically, yes.
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#440Ofcom 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…
The US thinks their laws apply globally so why wouldn’t Europe expect the same. We will be dealing with the fallout of Venezuela for generations.