211–220 of 817 posts
If the UK is serious, they could ban entry to the 4chan owner(s) or even arrest them upon entry, so it's not something to just ignore or laugh off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Well yes, because those who don't quickly lose users due to bad signal-noise ratio 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The difference is significant.
"The least bad thing that Ofcom and the Government could do is to quietly let the matter drop whilst focusing on education." This generalises very well for all Government. Shame we're a couple of generations into education being about producing pliant workers over independent, thinking human beings.
[flagged]
???
Do you really believe that?
I'd think it would be allowed for UK to: 1. Tell 4chan or its registrar l to take down .co.uk urls (maybe?) 2. Tell UK ISPs to ban UK visitors from viewing 4chan
They can, but they have to ask a court to enforce any sort of block. I imagine that's coming soon.
They want to block things, but don't want the optics of being one of "those" countries with a national firewall. So we get things like this.
Instead of getting court orders and ordering ISPs to block the sites, the UK is pushing off the responsibility for age verification onto the companies/site owners whether they are actually under UK jurisdiction or not.
Because if instead the UK just managed it internally, and started ordering ISPs to block, they'd be criticized foor being like China, and the citizens would start placing their blame on the government instead of the private companies that are pulling out of the market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the same is true for twitter i agree :) > people buy their blue checkmarks there all the time sadly, yes.
weird how all the despicable awful platforms are simply the ones with the least amount of editorial oversight from on high