Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 936 posts

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

#171

Post by 3rodents »

miohtama wrote: post #162
3rodents wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not really true. The Ofcom representative said “not allowed” not “unable to”. Even if cocaine is legal in my country, I’m “not allowed” to sell it to British consumers by the power of the British authorities. The British authorities may not have legal authority in my jurisdiction but they can take action in their own, including issuing penalties and stopping my deliveries at the border.

But are you allowed to post pictures of your cocaine on a website that is not in the UK?

You're even allowed to post photos of your cocaine on U.K. websites!

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

#172

Post by miohtama »

Germany tried earlier to fine American companies for online posts using a law called "NetzDG".

Gab refused to pay the fine, and it was over.

> The enforcement notice itself highlights the structural tension. Despite acknowledging Gab’s US address, the German government asserts authority to pursue collection, including formal enforcement proceedings, without identifying any German subsidiary or office.

> The payment instructions route funds directly to the German federal treasury, showing that the action is punitive rather than remedial.

> Germany’s approach also reveals the paper trail behind modern censorship enforcement. The fine stems not from a specific post or statement, but from alleged failure to comply with aspects of NetzDG. That procedural hook enables broader regulatory reach, transforming administrative requirements into a mechanism for speech governance.

https://reclaimthenet.org/gab-refuses-to-pay-germanys-fine-c...

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

#173

Post by monegator »

gadders wrote: post #82

If 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…

It is the freedom that comes from being anonymous.

To mock and ridicule, yes. to speak your mind, sure, But first and foremost to discuss between true equals, because you can only be judged by what you write, because the value you are bringing to the discussion comes from your words and not from your reputation as the real-world human you are.

Being free to discuss controversial topics without having repercussion to your job or family (which is why doxxing was so frowned upon back then)

Being free to do some stupid childish fun, just for laughs.

Something we still had when it was just forums, even though we did have accounts they did not represent our whole persona, and we could be different people on different platform.

Something that was almost lost for good when normies invaded the internet due to social networks. It's not completely lost yet, and we must fight to keep it.

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

#174

Post by 3rodents »

DevKoala wrote: post #158
3rodents wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not really true. The Ofcom representative said “not allowed” not “unable to”. Even if cocaine is legal in my country, I’m “not allowed” to sell it to British consumers by the power of the British authorities. The British authorities may not have legal authority in my jurisdiction but they can take action in their own, including issuing penalties and stopping my deliveries at the border.

That sounds so gross. Why do British people tolerate that? It’s as if British people belong to their government.

The same principles apply around the world. The U.S. recently invaded a sovereign nation and abducted its democratically elected leader because that leader was ostensibly involved in shipping cocaine to the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_interventio...

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

#175

Post by nkrisc »

ecshafer wrote: post #39

UK fining an American company for this is absurd. 4Chan isn't breaking any laws. You can make it illegal for your own citizens but you can't regulate a foreign business. UK citizens should fight for the right to free speech though.

> but you can't regulate a foreign business.

Sure they can. It’s unlikely they can do anything about it though.

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

#176

Post by cindyllm »

monegator wrote: post #173
gadders wrote: post #82

If 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…

It is the freedom that comes from being anonymous. To mock and ridicule, yes. to speak your mind, sure, But first and foremost to discuss between true equals, because you can only be judged by what you write, because the value you are bringing to the discussion comes from your words and not from your reputation as the real-world human you are. Being free to discuss controversial topics without having repercussion to…

[dead]

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

#177

Post by miohtama »

3rodents wrote: post #171
miohtama wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But are you allowed to post pictures of your cocaine on a website that is not in the UK?

You're even allowed to post photos of your cocaine on U.K. websites!

It depends. If it causes anxiety to someone, it is illegal. Pictures of drugs could fall into this category.

> Current law allows for restrictions on threatening or abusive words or behaviour intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace, sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety,

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

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

#178

Post by [deleted] »

miohtama wrote: post #162
3rodents wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not really true. The Ofcom representative said “not allowed” not “unable to”. Even if cocaine is legal in my country, I’m “not allowed” to sell it to British consumers by the power of the British authorities. The British authorities may not have legal authority in my jurisdiction but they can take action in their own, including issuing penalties and stopping my deliveries at the border.

But are you allowed to post pictures of your cocaine on a website that is not in the UK?

[deleted]

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

#179

Post by ImJamal »

3rodents wrote: post #174
DevKoala wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds so gross. Why do British people tolerate that? It’s as if British people belong to their government.

The same principles apply around the world. The U.S. recently invaded a sovereign nation and abducted its democratically elected leader because that leader was ostensibly involved in shipping cocaine to the U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_interventio...

Maduro was not legitimately and democratically elected.

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

#180

Post by mattmanser »

oliwarner wrote: post #140
3rodents wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not really true. The Ofcom representative said “not allowed” not “unable to”. Even if cocaine is legal in my country, I’m “not allowed” to sell it to British consumers by the power of the British authorities. The British authorities may not have legal authority in my jurisdiction but they can take action in their own, including issuing penalties and stopping my deliveries at the border.

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.

Not so clear cut though is it. For example, does 4chan use a CDN? And is that CDN on UK/EU soil, serving this content?

Therefore they're actually transacting that business on UK/EU soil.

Didn't the US use this argument to prosecute and extradite the Mega founder?

I wonder if the UK/EU will reverse uno the US's stance and start extraditions on US CEOs.

Post reply on HN