I think that because the UK speaks english, they’ve come to believe they somehow have similar levels of extraterritorial power as the US. Just a general symptom of way too many people consuming US media/political content.
4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
161–170 of 817 posts
Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not exactly. It's like if a brit goes to paris to buy cigarettes, the UK is stating that it's the tabac's job to refuse the transaction. They can say whatever they want, but the UK can't conduct an extra-territorial police action in france. They can bar subject from traveling to france instead. The onus is on the UK.
I'm nearly at the point of saying that a tobacco sales isn't the best analogy here.
I could be milk, right? Or a sheet of paper.
I'll concede that it's not terribly far fetched. If the french entity produced a good that is illegal in the UK put it in the post to be delivered to the UK, then we have something like an analog to producing HTML in one place and displaying elsewhere.
However, the thing about sovereignty is that you don't have it if you can't enforce it.
Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
#163Cheers, UK.
Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
#164I bought a 4chan pass today just to support the effort. If there's ever a hornets nest you don't want to fuck with it's 4chan and i can't imagine a better poking stick than ofcom.
If there's ever a hornets nest you don't want to fuck with it's 4chan That certainly used to be the case pre-2012 . All the former hactivists have long since left. marriage, kids, real life, etc... Now it's mostly handfuls of edgy boys on cell phones in school and 4chan-GPT creating and responding to threads. I wish I were wrong. The site went mostly dead for about two weeks when USAID was defunded and had to shift f…
idk, 4chan still can have the highest quality of technical conversation (at least on ML) outside of twitter/X —- and yes, that’s including HN. it’s where the llama & mistral weights were leaked
Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
#165I think that because the UK speaks english, they’ve come to believe they somehow have similar levels of extraterritorial power as the US. Just a general symptom of way too many people consuming US media/political content.
That hyperbole is about the scale of the US military budget. The UK is nowhere close to the US in terms of its belief in "extraterritorial power". You are taking one instance and wildly just making things up
Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
To say 4chan isn't a cesspit of racism, mysogony, anti-semitism and disgusting content would be a lie. But the same is true for twitter and people buy their blue checkmarks there all the time.
> the same is true for twitter i agree :) > people buy their blue checkmarks there all the time sadly, yes.
weird how all the despicable awful platforms are simply the ones with the least amount of editorial oversight from on high
Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
#167I hate the Ofcom and the clowns that pass for British government. But I can see how this argument would make sense in the retarded mind of a lawyer. The first amendment doesn't give people rights: people already have those rights. Instead, the first amendment constrains the power of the US government to infringe upon those rights. It doesn't constrain the power of any other government.
>The first amendment doesn't give people rights: people already have those rights. Says who? Prove it. Go to Russia and say something bad about the government and see how well this right you think you magically get holds up.
Infringement on a right doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The perspective with which we look at rights vs. privileges matters in a society, so it's not just semantics.
Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
#168I think that because the UK speaks english, they’ve come to believe they somehow have similar levels of extraterritorial power as the US. Just a general symptom of way too many people consuming US media/political content.
They probably made the mistake of assuming they had a reciprocal relationship.
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/us-visa-polic...
Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I don't want the government to decide which thoughts I can access and which ones I can't That would be an interesting discussion in itself, but even so - accessing material in isolation over the internet removes all of the benefits of cultural and community self-regulation. >freely run undercover propaganda and/or destabilization campaigns I'm of the opinion that WWW3 has already happened - it was a war for hearts a…
> cultural and community self-regulation This is a very fancy way of saying “censorship”. > I'm of the opinion that WWW3 has already happened - it was a war for hearts and minds waged over the internet, and we've already lost. If the open, unfettered exchange of culture and ideas is such a threat to our system then we deserve to lose. If my only option is to be stuck in a system that enforces ideological conformity o…
You have it backwards. Ideological conformity these days is enforced by creating the illusion that everyone around you is ideologically conforming.
The question is: is there a defense against this?
Your answer currently is there is no defense because creating an illusion of unanimous ideological conformity counts as an exchange of ideas and that exchange must not be hindered.
The debate is over whether the right to conduct Sybil attacks is more precious than the right to freedom of thought. The question is vastly harder than many people in this thread seem to believe.
My personal take is that the right to freedom of thought is more fundamental and that the value of freedom of speech is via its support for freedom of thought.
Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
#170If the UK is serious, they could ban entry to the 4chan owner(s) or even arrest them upon entry, so it's not something to just ignore or laugh off.