201–210 of 817 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
/pol/ was a containment board for Stormfront users. The site is super pluralistic. But don't force yourself to go to a place you don't want to go.
There's no such thing as a "containment board." Nothing actually gets contained.
More 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.
Hell look at HN and literally anywhere. Everybody has their own "ideal" world.
I for instance don't want anybody talking shit about anime or video games ever.
This is a really well-written article. The whole thing is so absurd and this makes it so clear.
FWIW I agree with the intent of the Act, and am generally in favour of a sovereign firewall. Edit: In a nutshell - almost every other transfer of goods and services across national borders is subject to quality standards. Why do we give a pass to a system that allows deep, individualised access to people's personal lives and mental processes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes if the Parisian tabaconist sells in the UK. What happens in France is a French concern.
Not exactly. It's like if a brit goes to paris to buy cigarettes, the UK is stating that it's the tabac's job to refuse the transaction. They can say whatever they want, but the UK can't conduct an extra-territorial police action in france. They can bar subject from traveling to france instead. The onus is on the UK.
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.
What do you mean? Parents can easily set this up before they give them to their children.
More 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.
Put anyone in charge of any space and they'll want to control what people say and think there. Hell look at HN and literally anywhere. Everybody has their own "ideal" world. I for instance don't want anybody talking shit about anime or video games ever.
More 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.
Put anyone in charge of any space and they'll want to control what people say and think there. Hell look at HN and literally anywhere. Everybody has their own "ideal" world. I for instance don't want anybody talking shit about anime or video games ever.
When was the last time anyone visited an unmoderated usenet group?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not exactly. It's like if a brit goes to paris to buy cigarettes, the UK is stating that it's the tabac's job to refuse the transaction. They can say whatever they want, but the UK can't conduct an extra-territorial police action in france. They can bar subject from traveling to france instead. The onus is on the UK.
They're not going to Paris, are they? 4chan brings their services into the UK. The US does the same thing: Kim Dotcom comes to mind.
How exactly do they do that? Do they have peering agreements with UK-based ISPs?
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.
Am I missing something here? 4chan is available in the UK so has to follow UK laws there, where is the problem? Regardless of whatever it is they are enforcing.
Suppose North Korea sends you a letter demanding that you take down a blog post joking about Kim Jong-un being chubby, because that's illegal in North Korea. Do you feel obligated to comply with that demand? After all, your blog could possibly be read by someone in North Korea.
I don't have anything against the UK. They've been our good buddies since a spat we had a couple hundred years ago. But I feel every bit as obligated to follow UK law as to obey North Korean law, which is to say, not at all.