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

221–230 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#221

Post by femiagbabiaka »

Razengan wrote: post #202
riazrizvi wrote: post #175

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.

If speech in the U.K. was moderated like HN, the situation would be greatly improved.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#222

Post by SunshineTheCat »

riazrizvi wrote: post #175

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.

I don't mean this to be as insulting as it may, but the UK government trying to police US businesses has always felt like a toddler trying to ground his mom.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#223

Post by Terr_ »

wiredfool wrote: post #40
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.

Having done several rounds with parental control, I'd say -- nfw. We were worried more about timesink than anything else, but over a long period of time, it mainly boils down to knowing your kids, trusting them, with checkups. The tech is just not there to actually control what happens on a device. White listing worked for a while (months) when they were young, but it was super-high touch and stuff just broke all the…

> The tech is just not there to actually control what happens on a device.

Neither is the tech for locking down all online identity to government-controlled access... But I have strong opinions about which one everybody should/shouldn't start creating!

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#224

Post by kstrauser »

morkalork wrote: post #151
pessimizer wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> South Korea (smoking cannabis abroad) And gambling, too. Remember in 2013 when all those celebrities got busted for gambling in Macao? > After getting caught gambling illegally, Shinhwa’s Andy, Boom and Yang Se Hyung received their punishments. > On November 28, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced Andy, Boom, and Yang Se Hyung to monetary penalties. Andy and Boom must pay 5,000,000 won, while Yang Se Hyung w…

There's also all the countries that have laws regarding sex-tourism abroad as well.

That's different in that it prosecutes citizens of those countries for things done outside their borders, not unrelated people doing things elsewhere.

America will prosecute Americans for doing certain things that are illegal inside America outside its borders. As another example, if you take a boat to international waters and kill someone on it, you're going to get arrested and prosecuted when you get home.

America will not arrest or prosecute someone from the UK visiting Thailand as a sex tourist.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#225

Post by GoblinSlayer »

CaptainOfCoit wrote: post #195
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The duties extend to the use of the service in the UK.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#226

Post by huflungdung »

cdfsdsadsa wrote: post #6
ridruejo wrote: post #2

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?

[dead]

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#227

Post by GoblinSlayer »

josefx wrote: post #209
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But it doesn't seek to block 4chan, it seeks to impose penalties.

Block is the only realistically imposable penalty in this case.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#228

Post by trallnag »

krapp wrote: post #159
tokai wrote: post #149

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.

You want to me share all the IP addresses I've got banned on for posting stuff on /g/, /sp/, and /int/? There's definitely some level of containment going on. Be it pornography, politics, or gore.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#229

Post by Bender »

HPsquared wrote: post #192
Bender wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"We" are not in control of the server or phone client or tablet applications. Should the 5-eyes or 9-eyes countries pass a law to use RTA headers on servers and look for the header on user-agents that should suffice to get basic coverage for kiddos by default and parents can disable the checks if they so desire.
Post reply on HN