I've read a decent amount about this topic and I still don't understand why a law is needed or what it would do. If you have no presence in the UK they can fine you, you can simply not pay the fine, and you have to remember to never travel to the UK so they don't arrest you. It's not clear that a US law could somehow prevent the UK from fining you.
State Department confirms federal censorship shield law incoming
21–28 of 28 posts
Re: State Department confirms federal censorship shield law incoming
#22[deleted]
Re: State Department confirms federal censorship shield law incoming
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ofcom (isp I guess?) has been trying to force 4chan to use age verification on all visitors in compliance with UK law, All? I think not. "The Act only requires that services take action to protect users in the UK - it does not require them to protect users anywhere else in the world. The measures that Ofcom recommends providers take to comply with their duties only relate to the design or operation of the service i…
You are taking ofcom's statements at face value and assuming them to be accurate, rather than blatant lies and spin. And even to the extent that that statement were true, it's still overreach to claim any ability to regulate companies outside their jurisdiction. It is not the responsibility of people outside their jurisdiction to help them oppress their citizens; it's just more politically safe to attempt extraterrit…
> You are taking ofcom's statements at face value and assuming them to be accurate, rather than blatant lies and spin.
No I am not. I've verified those statements against the Online Safety Act itself.
Please feel free to substantiate your suggestion they are "blatant lies and spin".
Re: State Department confirms federal censorship shield law incoming
#24I've read a decent amount about this topic and I still don't understand why a law is needed or what it would do. If you have no presence in the UK they can fine you, you can simply not pay the fine, and you have to remember to never travel to the UK so they don't arrest you. It's not clear that a US law could somehow prevent the UK from fining you.
It is simply posturing.
The claim that this UK action is an attack on the US First Amendment is absurd. That amendment is merely a limitation on the powers of Congress, and is irrelevant to the powers of the UK.
Re: State Department confirms federal censorship shield law incoming
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are taking ofcom's statements at face value and assuming them to be accurate, rather than blatant lies and spin. And even to the extent that that statement were true, it's still overreach to claim any ability to regulate companies outside their jurisdiction. It is not the responsibility of people outside their jurisdiction to help them oppress their citizens; it's just more politically safe to attempt extraterrit…
> You are taking ofcom's statements at face value and assuming them to be accurate, rather than blatant lies and spin. No I am not. I've verified those statements against the Online Safety Act itself. Please feel free to substantiate your suggestion they are "blatant lies and spin".
Ofcom's claimed aims are simultaneously overreaching even in what they claim to want, and inconsistent with their actual enforcement actions which in some cases seem intentionally unsatisfiable by any means other than "stop existing online". Empirically, their attempts at enforcement on non-UK entities, which should not even be able to go as far as "block UK users" (not a responsibility of a non-UK entity), don't stop with "block UK users", and also attempt to enforce "don't suggest VPNs" and "block VPNs", which are not aspects inherently associated with UK users specifically as opposed to any other country.
And all that is leaving aside that the claimed aims of "protecting UK users" are confirmed false, in legal filings: https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy2...
Re: State Department confirms federal censorship shield law incoming
#26If this goes on, we could end up with separate regional networks instead of a big internet. A bit like what is already going on in China.
Re: State Department confirms federal censorship shield law incoming
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You are taking ofcom's statements at face value and assuming them to be accurate, rather than blatant lies and spin. No I am not. I've verified those statements against the Online Safety Act itself. Please feel free to substantiate your suggestion they are "blatant lies and spin".
Ofcom's claimed aims are simultaneously overreaching even in what they claim to want, and inconsistent with their actual enforcement actions which in some cases seem intentionally unsatisfiable by any means other than "stop existing online". Empirically, their attempts at enforcement on non-UK entities, which should not even be able to go as far as "block UK users" (not a responsibility of a non-UK entity), don't sto…
> their actual enforcement actions which in some cases seem intentionally unsatisfiable by any means other than "stop existing online"
OK, so you are disputing Ofcom's: "The measures that Ofcom recommends providers take to comply with their duties only relate to the design or operation of the service in the UK or as it affects UK users".
Feel free to show even one Ofcom demand that goes beyond service to UK users only.
Re: State Department confirms federal censorship shield law incoming
#28If this goes on, we could end up with separate regional networks instead of a big internet. A bit like what is already going on in China.
This.
The logical response to non- compliance with your country's regulations is simply to block them. 4chan probably won't care, but that's what will keep the bigger players like X and Meta engaged in some way. They won't want to be cut off from the European market, and a precedent set that 'non-awful' governments are justified to block them.
Of course, all this a month after the US invaded another country to snatch their president and his wife to put them on trial for US "crimes" they supposedly committed while not in the US and while not being Americans abroad. I wonder if the murdering of ~100 people in that operation is a crime there that those on the US would be expected to answer for \s. It's all so stupidly rich.