Live data from Hacker News

Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

theregister.com

171–180 of 260 posts

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#171
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, ofcom don't need to be picking the fights they are, they're choosing to support the political arm under the claims of "hate speech" and "ungood bad think"

> they're choosing to support the political arm under the claims of "hate speech" and "ungood bad think" I do wonder if you bother to actually read the stuff you are typing. like have you _met_ anyone from ofcom? or seen the shit that 4chan routinely post? 4chan is literally the living embodiment of what the OSA was designed(and will probably fail) to stop. No moderation, loads of porn, incitement to violence but to…

There is plenty of moderation on 4chan. It actively avoids breaking the laws of the country it's hosted in (the USA). You may not like what's on it, but it's not "extreme".

It used to be more extreme, it's not today. It's why spinoffs like 8chan were created, they felt there was too much moderation on 4chan. If you hear of some diabolical internet stunt, these days it was probably soyjak.party that organised it, not 4chan's /b/

As you allude, Ofcom cares not, they just want all sites to bend the knee to them.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With this logic we could ban selling knives, because you can use them to kill somebody.

In the UK you need to be over 18 to buy knives

Complete ban should be enforced, even if it saves a one child, it is worth it.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#173

Commentators criticising the act and ofcom’s attempt, do understand the online safety act is to prevent children from watching porn? The critique always lacks any form of grounding in reality or proposal of alternative solutions

There is already a method for that, it is called parenting. Technology never could, cannot, and never will solve problems that are human in nature

^ this is my point. You remove any grounding. We don’t allow children to drink (we allow them younger in the UK than the US), drive, and many other things we have safeguards for. Also, how do you suggest parenting solves for this? Are children with parents all the time? Does the data suggest an only parenting technique works? No, course not. What’s your solution to something that is a problem? All up for a critique of the act but to say “there is no problem” is absurd.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a nanny state which is even worse

It's a nanny state with the police arresting and jailing people for tweets. It's a police state, but "we" like to identify police states with Russians, Chinese, and Iranians, or whoever the state's enemy is at the moment. When police show up to your door and ask you to apologize to people for causing distress, and to consider not speaking from now on, you live in a police state. When you have banned political parties…

> you live in a police state.

sigh You've not lived in a police state, or more accurately, you've been online too much to actually get context.

In the UK threatening to kill someone has been illegal since at least ~1880 something. Going online an publicly calling for the death of one or more person (which in the eyes of the law is pretty close to sending a good old paper death threat) is not only widely considered a dick move, its illegal.

Now, How do you enforce that? the police investigate, and if its deemed a credible threat, you are visited by the plod. Who most likley go "look mate, don't be a dick".

If you are really being a dick, you might be cautioned (taken to the police station and told "you're being a shit")

The next stage up is appearing in court.

And then you have to be convicted by a jury of your peers, and the burden of evidence is really quite high. ("oh but that mum, she was innocent." I advise you to read all that she wrote, you know the extra bits that the sun can't print)

Its not like you're bundled into the back of a van by masked goons who refuse to identify themselves. Taken to a mass detention centre and not seen for weeks, and then yeeted to an illegal jail.

But why are the police investigating social media?

Now thats a good question. And the answer is: Musk doesn't moderate. Stuff that gets you a visit from the plod is generally against the community standards of social media, even X.

Now to your point here: "When police show up to your door and ask you to apologize to people for causing distress"

I've had a visit from the police, why? because I was young and being an antisocial shit. The police were not actually there to arrest me, and I don't think they could actually if they wanted to. The point was, they were there to make the town liveable for all it's citizens. I was "fucking around", and the police were gently telling me that I'd really not like to "find out".

"OH BUT PERSONAL FREEDOM". Now, the thing is, I was perfectly free to carry on my bad ways. The problem was, those ways, had they descended further, would have resulted in jail time. The choice was mine.

I don't want to live in a country where its acceptable to bully whomever I like, in the guise of personal freedom. Sure, speak your mind, but don't be a dick about it.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#175

Commentators criticising the act and ofcom’s attempt, do understand the online safety act is to prevent children from watching porn? The critique always lacks any form of grounding in reality or proposal of alternative solutions

There is already a method for that, it is called parenting. Technology never could, cannot, and never will solve problems that are human in nature

Children freely watching porn is a technology problem not a not a nature problem

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#176

Commentators criticising the act and ofcom’s attempt, do understand the online safety act is to prevent children from watching porn? The critique always lacks any form of grounding in reality or proposal of alternative solutions

With this logic we could ban selling knives, because you can use them to kill somebody.

Or ban guns

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it doesn't look like these Ofcom guys are playing with a full deck they're a quango, staffed by those who couldn't make it as civil servants (not a high bar) I'd be surprised if anyone who works there has ever used the internet similarly useless are ofwat (water) and ofgem (energy), both of which allowed massive scandals to happen on their watch ofwat: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/21/new-powerfu...…

> staffed by those who couldn't make it as civil servants Still civil service. > I'd be surprised if anyone who works there has ever used the internet They do, but the pricks who created the law are/were reactionary politicians, who couldn’t be bothered to actually draft decent laws. Ofwat and ofgem are different issues, they have suffered regulatory capture. Ofwat has the power to bankrupt the entire water system. W…

In the UK and Ireland, a distinction is generally made between public servants, who are paid by government appropriation, and civil servants, who are employed directly by government departments and the organisations they directly control and fund.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#178
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enforcing bad legislation that was enacted through the democratic process doesn’t make a country a police state. It’s just the rule of law. That has always included the enforcement of bad laws as well as good ones.

The UK locks up political dissidents under draconian 'safety' laws.

> The UK locks up political dissidents under draconian 'safety' laws.

We used to just out and out shoot them.

We used to demand that they have their voices literally overdubbed by an actor.

We used to round people up and jail them for being too irish.

We used to be in a civil war, up until the 2000s.

You're just having a cyberpunk wet dream. Don't get me wrong, the OSA is an abomination. but you are being a hyperbolic child, especially as actual authoritarianism is happening in the USA, without anything as a peep from the same blowhards talking about the OSA.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, I'd like to actually know the answer to the question you're posing there. Does discussing suicide increase the overall rate, is it neutral -- or does it even decrease it? The Samaritans are usually regarded as a net public benefit, though they tend not to encourage people to go through with it, whereas the Wikipedia link suggests that the users of that forum have some kind of fetish for it. I would also exp…

Having perused the site a number of times, I wouldn't say many people there "have a fetish for it". You're a million times more likely to be told to kill yourself on 4chan than on SS. SS simply says a) suicide should be your choice, b) dehumanizing people for having suicidal thoughts is bad. Sadly these opinions are so far outside the overton window that suicidal people end up having no choice but to discuss their pr…

Thanks for sharing. It's actually reassuring to hear that the forum isn't as dark as I assumed. Providing a route for people to work through things is surely more helpful than suppression.

I am a little surprised that you perceive a gap between the advice to "consult a professional" and your a) and b). Do professionals working in this space not accept the validity of your thoughts and feelings, as a basic step? They really should.

For whatever it's worth, I hope you choose to stay with us.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#180

What do they seek to accomplish here? There is strong precedent for the US defending the 1st amendment against foreign interests. No UK bureaucrats are going to make a career out of this. Going after a company that can defend itself and can't be intimidated, will prevent them from bluffing successfully against smaller companies, who could realistically be intimidated. If I were working at Ofcom, I would stay away fro…

> There is strong precedent for the US defending the 1st amendment against foreign interests. How does this ruling affect the company's right to free speech in the US? It's a fine for refusing to comply with a law in the UK; any sufficiently competent organisation could choose to comply with censorship/age gating in one country and avoid those restrictions in all others.

The thing about laws are they stop at the border. Unless you are sufficiently powerful that you can ignore the rights of other countries and their people, the UK isn't powerful anymore, but hasn't grasped that concept yet (I'm British, at this point it's just kind of sad).

So UK laws stop at the UK border.

4Chan is a US company, based in the US, with all its people and stuff in the US. It has never had a presence in the UK.

In the US people and companies have the right to free speech guaranteed under the first amendment, that includes speech conducted online. Many people would consider having the ability to speak, but having the government restrict hearing that speech to amount to a free speech violation.

The only jurisdiction 4Chan operates in is the US and they are defending their rights: they also have that right, the US isn't North Korea, or China, or the UK.

This isn't a matter of can they censor, of course they can. This is a matter of they don't have to, and they won't.

The UK has no jurisdiction, or reason to believe they have jurisdiction, or ability to enforce its laws extraterritorially over pretty much any foreign entity, but especially not the US.

Anyway you look at this, this is a jumped up little backwater not content with robbing their own citizens of their rights, they are now trying to rob others too.

Post reply on HN