[deleted]
4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
171–180 of 817 posts
Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
#172I 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...
there is no ‘right to enter America’ and fwiw i seem to recall that the UK has a bad habit of banning American musicians for the content of their songs.
Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
#173> The Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this expressly includes conducting investigations into, and imposing penalties for, non-compliance by providers of online services with their duties under the Act. […] The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect I don't see anything wrong here: Sure, Ofcom can have th…
Look at this page: https://www.4chan.org/advertise It explicitly says that 7% of their users are coming from UK. If UK blocks them, they will loose noticeable part of advertising revenue. If there was no money at stake, they could just ignore Ofcom and sleep well. But they appear to be very agitated about the fact that they may loose their second biggest market. Honestly, I don’t understand anyone on 4chan side here:…
Comply, leave, or fight the law if you think it's stupid.
Lots of laws are stupid. If you think they're stupid, you're allowed to try to fight them.
Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
#174I'd think it would be allowed for UK to:
1. Tell 4chan or its registrar l to take down .co.uk urls (maybe?)
2. Tell UK ISPs to ban UK visitors from viewing 4chan
Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
#175More odious nannying by silly civil servants. If Britain is to restore cultural leadership it needs to move policy away from this horrible trend of policing what people say and think, and focus its energy on better policing what people do.
Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
#176> The Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this expressly includes conducting investigations into, and imposing penalties for, non-compliance by providers of online services with their duties under the Act. […] The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect I don't see anything wrong here: Sure, Ofcom can have th…
Look at this page: https://www.4chan.org/advertise It explicitly says that 7% of their users are coming from UK. If UK blocks them, they will loose noticeable part of advertising revenue. If there was no money at stake, they could just ignore Ofcom and sleep well. But they appear to be very agitated about the fact that they may loose their second biggest market. Honestly, I don’t understand anyone on 4chan side here:…
Note, they don’t earn money from users. They earn money from advertisers.
This is important because if it was advertisers, it would be much easier for UK to have actual power over them, since the UK business actually would be under UK jurisdiction.
Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at this page: https://www.4chan.org/advertise It explicitly says that 7% of their users are coming from UK. If UK blocks them, they will loose noticeable part of advertising revenue. If there was no money at stake, they could just ignore Ofcom and sleep well. But they appear to be very agitated about the fact that they may loose their second biggest market. Honestly, I don’t understand anyone on 4chan side here:…
Comply, leave, or fight the law if you think it's stupid. Lots of laws are stupid. If you think they're stupid, you're allowed to try to fight them.
Well, you’re allowed to try to fight them in some places, some of the time - with often severe consequences if you don’t win.
Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
> then they could ship with filters enabled All mobile network connections already come with content filters enabled in the UK, adult or not, and has to be explicitly disabled.
Yes but to be clear, using wifi or a VPN can bypass that. It's not an on-device filter.
Yes but wifi costs money - only adults have wifi. It's effectively already age restricted.
Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
#179I 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
Doing business in the US is existential for most multinationals, so they do have extraterritorial reach - hence the US taxation system, US banking regulatory system, WTO, etc. Not so for the UK, especially post-brexit.
Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence
#180I 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.
Says God, would say the framers.