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

4chan will refuse to pay daily online safety fines, lawyer tells BBC

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 451 posts

Re: 4chan will refuse to pay daily online safety fines, lawyer tells BBC

#181

Post by Bender »

bananalychee wrote: post #178
Bender wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They bragged about it for a while but after the bragging stopped my proof is only anecdotal. When the United States Agency for International Development was defunded the bots went quiet and shortly thereafter the site was hacked using a vulnerability that had been well known since 2012 . It was peaceful for a few weeks prior to the hack and for a couple weeks after the hack. Most of the fake racists disappeared from…

If that's true you should be able to see that in the public traffic statistics.

I thought about that as well. This would be true if team-hiromoot is not cooperating with the bot owners, otherwise the bots could simply be excluded given all their traffic is authenticated with a 4chan pass. Other chans have manipulated their stats to change how active they appear so it's really hard for me to rely upon that.

Re: 4chan will refuse to pay daily online safety fines, lawyer tells BBC

#182

Post by FirmwareBurner »

lokar wrote: post #163
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western democracies have fair and competitive elections in the same way they have fair and competitive markets for things like internet access or mobile phones. You are effectively only allowed to choose between a very carefully managed set of choice that are provided to you. This set of choices is often so dire and distant from people's actual desires that many just don't bother voting at all. George Carlin used the…

This is my point. You need to identify the source of the problem if you want to take action. Blaming bureaucrats is not helpful.

> Blaming bureaucrats is not helpful.

Bureaucrats are the ones making the rules of the game we have to play. So why shouldn't we blame them?

Re: 4chan will refuse to pay daily online safety fines, lawyer tells BBC

#183

Post by sunshine-o »

lokar wrote: post #77
sunshine-o wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the only power they have left. The UK government has lost control of what happen in the physical world on their own island so now the bureaucrats play a fantasy game where they are gonna enforce their rules and dominion in their former colonies or the digital world.

While I disapprove of what the gov is doing here, I think it’s incorrect and unhelpful to put all the blame on them. AIUI, the UK is a democracy and these policies are generally supported by the voters.

I understand the people might wanna block porn on their kids mobile internet and home WiFi.

So why don't they mandate their ISP to implement this as an optional feature ?

Why do they instead try to boil the ocean by going after every website on the planet and outside of their jurisdiction?

Re: 4chan will refuse to pay daily online safety fines, lawyer tells BBC

#184

Post by bigstrat2003 »

lenerdenator wrote: post #103
_heimdall wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A similar argument can be made against the tariffs though. US consumers will be paying the bulk of the tariffs through price increases. We do have representatives in Congress, they just weren't the ones imposing tariffs. edit: as fun as silent down votes are, it would be interesting to hear where you might disagree

Unfortunately the representatives in Congress gave the tariff power to the Presidency. Now, did they do that with the approval of the voters? Ostensibly, yes, but in reality, it's not that clear-cut. This would be more like if the Thirteen Colonies had MPs and those MPs still voted in favor of the Stamp Act, or they voted to delegate the power to tariff to someone with a severe personality disorder.

It infuriates me just how much members of Congress have abdicated their jobs and given power to the president to make unilateral decisions. I wonder if we need a constitutional amendment (not that we could get such a thing to pass in this day and age), because it is a complete perversion of how our government is supposed to work.

For a long time now I've been banging the drum of "don't put power in the president's hands", because the downside has always been very clear to me: even if you trust the guy in office today, doesn't mean you will want the next guy to have that power. But people just don't care. They are quite happy to have unilateral power exercised by one man, because they don't bother to think through the consequences of such things.

Re: 4chan will refuse to pay daily online safety fines, lawyer tells BBC

#185

Post by nemomarx »

sunshine-o wrote: post #183
lokar wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I disapprove of what the gov is doing here, I think it’s incorrect and unhelpful to put all the blame on them. AIUI, the UK is a democracy and these policies are generally supported by the voters.

I understand the people might wanna block porn on their kids mobile internet and home WiFi. So why don't they mandate their ISP to implement this as an optional feature ? Why do they instead try to boil the ocean by going after every website on the planet and outside of their jurisdiction?

Their isps already offer this, actually. You have to show id to them to get it turned pff.

Re: 4chan will refuse to pay daily online safety fines, lawyer tells BBC

#186

Post by realo »

sunshine-o wrote: post #52
nickdothutton wrote: post #22

Step 1, pass law. Step 2, demand compliance. Step 3, upon not hearing of compliance, levy fines. Step 4, upon non payment of fines, declare in breach of (2). Step 5, block site from UK using DNS, in the same manner as torrent sites etc. 5 was always the goal, 2 to 4 are largely just performative.

This is the only power they have left. The UK government has lost control of what happen in the physical world on their own island so now the bureaucrats play a fantasy game where they are gonna enforce their rules and dominion in their former colonies or the digital world.

So ... if the USA was ok with kid pornography then everyone else in the world would be forced to be ok with that too?

Sorry but other countries are totally right to block whatever they deem to be USA shit.

Re: 4chan will refuse to pay daily online safety fines, lawyer tells BBC

#187

Post by sidewndr46 »

greenavocado wrote: post #120
firesteelrain wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do still have limited entry and exit points to other Countries internets. You could end up with Great Firewalls across the globe if it got bad enough. It doesn’t deter VPNs though

They will put you behind bars for years for using VPNs once they win.

Who is 'they' here?

Re: 4chan will refuse to pay daily online safety fines, lawyer tells BBC

#188

Post by mostlysimilar »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #171
oceansky wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I laughed at hiromoot. Very clever nickname

I know moot, but what’s the hiro part mean?

A Japanese man named Nishimura Hiroyuki bought and now owns 4chan. It's a mashup of their names.

Re: 4chan will refuse to pay daily online safety fines, lawyer tells BBC

#189

Post by dismalpedigree »

realo wrote: post #186
sunshine-o wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the only power they have left. The UK government has lost control of what happen in the physical world on their own island so now the bureaucrats play a fantasy game where they are gonna enforce their rules and dominion in their former colonies or the digital world.

So ... if the USA was ok with kid pornography then everyone else in the world would be forced to be ok with that too? Sorry but other countries are totally right to block whatever they deem to be USA shit.

Yes. UK has every right to block whatever they want. US has no obligation to assist them in any way.

Re: 4chan will refuse to pay daily online safety fines, lawyer tells BBC

#190

Post by jlokier »

adiabatichottub wrote: post #142
hluska wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a form of political change - direct representation democracy and recall legislation are both possibilities. The solution is to make electoral change happen, not to complain that everything is hopeless on the internet.

But how can those changes be made if the representatives don't act to make them? It would take a pretty big act of solidarity amongst various constituencies to send the message that failure to act is not an option.

Since we're talking about the UK, in 2010 negotations after a hung parliament produced an opportunity to move towards something a little more representative: The 2011 referendum on changing to AV voting from first-past-the-post.

Unfortunately, voters rejected that change quite strongly, and that probably set the trend for a while against further steps to proportional or more direct democratic systems.

AV is a type of transferable vote system, and a step closer to proportional representation. In AV you get two votes, so you can vote for your preferred candidate first (who may be niche but represents you better), and your tactical-vote candidate second (who doesn't represent you but are better than the even-worse candidate). As opposed to the current FPTP system, where you often have to tactical-vote for candidates who don't represent your interests much, and your actual preference is not recorded at all.

Even though AV is far from ideal, if voters had said yes then I think just the symbolism of changing the system, would have resulted in a greater inclination to change the system again later.

AV, STV and PR have been debated a number of times in the UK parliament in the last centery, so it does keep coming up, and will likely come up again, eventually.

Post reply on HN