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

4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

alecmuffett.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#191

Post by jagged-chisel »

mikkupikku wrote: post #133
Hamuko wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't this mean that the Act only applies to services explicitly design/targeting UK users/visitors? Clearly not considering that there's nothing in 4chan that would make it explicitly targeted towards the UK. Unless Ofcom is saying something and doing the opposite.

4chan does have very minor explicit support for UK users; on some boards it puts a UK flag on their post (as it does with all other countries and territories.) It could perhaps be argued that this constitutes the site being consciously designed with UK users in mind. Hardly matters though, there's nothing the UK can do about it. They aren't a superpower anymore and it's time for them to realize it.

I am not a 4chan user. How is this flag assigned? Automatically by 4chan based on some criteria? Or chosen at will by the user?

Presumably if the latter, one may express their support of the flag of their choice; or indicate their heritage; or any number of other reasons.

If the former, and considering the existence of a .uk TLD, they probably are considered to be “targeting” that market.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#192

Post by HPsquared »

Bender wrote: post #120
HPsquared wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phone manufacturer. I don't think it would otherwise be possible without root. And it's quite a computationally heavy thing where security and privacy are important. It'd have to be secure (no sending information). That's why I suggested Apple, they have the vertical integration to do this kind of thing. In theory. Also it's a good counter to governments trying to censor the internet itself if children can be pro…

How about this. We implement RTA headers on the server and checks for the header on the clients, get little ones squared away and in parallel have Google and Apple start working on your local AI daemon. The header should take one code change cycle to get in place, maybe a couple weeks realistically assuming the goal posts are not on wheels.

But "we" are not in control of "the server". I agree though it's worth doing, adult content should be tagged as such. But it doesn't handle the case of non-compliance.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#193

Post by ivan_gammel »

array_key_first wrote: post #173
ivan_gammel wrote: post #157

Earlier 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.

Yes, sure, they can fight the law - in UK. It’s not what they are doing.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#194

Post by energy123 »

tokai wrote: post #145
energy123 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something needs to be done. The outcomes are manifestly bad. I can't take the pro-freedom intellectual argument seriously unless it's coupled with a suite of pragmatic solutions to the negative side effects I am observing with my own senses. The intellectual walls of text just aren't papering over that reality.

>The outcomes are manifestly bad. That's just as bad of an argument as so-called intellectual walls of text. Nothing needs to be done, the outcomes are not bad. My argument is as strong as yours.

The Internet Research Agency organizing multiple Black Lives Matter protests due to control over approximately 50% of the largest identity-based Facebook groups is just one small example on a long list of examples of social unrest and the consequential ushering in of sectarianism and destruction of democracy that the current status quo is enabling. The pro-freedom types do not even know this is happening let alone have any solutions to it. Turning a blind eye is all they have. So until they show an awareness of the existence of the issue I will be siding with the only people who have put any effort into addressing the problems.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#195

Post by CaptainOfCoit »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #185
CaptainOfCoit wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect It also continues like this: > This does not mean that the Act extends to all use of in-scope services globally. […] “The duties extend only to the design, operation and use of the service in the UK and, for duties expressed to apply in relation to ‘users’, as it affects the UK users of the service” Wouldn't this mean that the Act only applies…

That's not what the text means, but even if it did, you cornered yourself, since if you have no particular care for UK users, you won't care if they are blocked from your general service.

Could you help a fellow out and translate what it actually means in plain language?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#196

Post by ivan_gammel »

FabCH wrote: post #176
ivan_gammel wrote: post #157

Earlier 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:…

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.

>Note, they don’t earn money from users. They earn money from advertisers.

It doesn’t matter. They loose the audience - they loose advertising revenue. The only difference is that UK cannot seize the money to collect the fine (the fine now is the price of the return ticket), but the fine wasn’t big anyway and complete loss of the market has bigger economic consequences. UK doesn’t have power over US corporation, but they have power over their distribution channel and they have full sovereign right to exercise that power.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#197

Post by Hamuko »

jagged-chisel wrote: post #191
mikkupikku wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4chan does have very minor explicit support for UK users; on some boards it puts a UK flag on their post (as it does with all other countries and territories.) It could perhaps be argued that this constitutes the site being consciously designed with UK users in mind. Hardly matters though, there's nothing the UK can do about it. They aren't a superpower anymore and it's time for them to realize it.

I am not a 4chan user. How is this flag assigned? Automatically by 4chan based on some criteria? Or chosen at will by the user? Presumably if the latter, one may express their support of the flag of their choice; or indicate their heritage; or any number of other reasons. If the former, and considering the existence of a .uk TLD, they probably are considered to be “targeting” that market.

You get one automatically assigned based on GeoIP. It's even mentioned on Wikipedia.

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

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#198

Post by user34283 »

smilingsun wrote: post #18
epanchin wrote: post #11

Is there a solution where we can compel parental control to be enabled by default on kids phones? That would seem to be least intrusive option. Using the internet in the UK/EU is such a horrible experience, every cookie pop-up is a reminder how badly thought out these rules are.

It's very easy to make websites without needing cookie popups in EU/UK. Every cookie popup is a reminder of how stale the thinking around tracking and data sharing is!

If you do not use personalized advertising, I presume. Which may drop your ad revenue by somewhere between 20% and 60%.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#199

Post by chimprich »

whimsicalism wrote: post #172
lawlessone wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Like the US's bad habit of banning British musicians for the content of their songs? https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/30/uk/bob-vylan-uk-band-glas...

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#200

Post by Aachen »

reorder9695 wrote: post #187
aveao wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that seems like an issue with the website owner to me

A lot of websites for smaller businesses will not be run by technical people, they'll be run by business people or otherwise who don't understand cookies beyond "I see cookie banners on every website I visit, therefore to avoid legal trouble I need one too", you can't expect someone like that to understand the difference between tracking cookies and technical cookies.

We're a small business, <10FTE, and have no cookie notice at all. We don't track people.
Post reply on HN