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

241–250 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#241

Post by gchamonlive »

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.

On the one hand if you police what people say and think you risk moderation being weponized into censorship. On the other hand if you don't you risk big corp weaponizing free speech into misinformation.

It's not a simple problem to solve, and it's not like having one problem is better than the other, because both devolve outside the boundaries of democracy.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#242

Post by martin-t »

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.

The evolution of governance of online communities mirrors that of the real-world.

First, everyone did what they wanted. As conflict became more common, power hierarchies started to emerge. we're now at a stage where every place needs to be governed, yet its members have no influence over who does it.

I have online communities will transition into something resembling democracy where moderators are elected from members by members.

---

While HN is fairly lenient, moderators in pretty much all online spaces are effectively dictators, they are not elected and they cannot be removed by ordinary users, no matter how many disagree.

And of course, such positions attract people who want power for its own sake and who have agendas they want to push.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#243

Post by ivan_gammel »

FabCH wrote: post #215
ivan_gammel wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

That assumes UK deploys technical measures to prevent their own citizens from accessing the website, which costs more political capital than fining a corporation. Or makes it illegal to access the site, which is even more unpopular. The difference is significant.

Realistically, UK is a big market for 4chan, but is 4chan big enough for UK? What share of its 70M+ population will flip their vote because of this specific case? How many people will just switch to Reddit or something else and won’t even connect that block to any political party?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#244

Post by femiagbabiaka »

pessimizer wrote: post #239
femiagbabiaka wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I imagine you'll be saying this with tears flowing from your eyes after the UK blocks HN.

God forbid.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#245

Post by miladyincontrol »

tronicjester wrote: post #39
4ggr0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the rasion d'etre of 4chan can probably be discussed forever, but i can't imagine donating money to such a vile, hate-filled platform. surely there are better causes fighting for the same things, right? i know, freedom of speech, it's your money and not mine, etc.

Whose hate filled platform? Is there proof mods push general threads or curate content? If the "hate" is legit perspectives from the populous then its important. Reddit is highly curated and far more echoey than 4chan. Never seen pro-Jesus/Islam threads on main page of Reddit. 4chan has them all the time on multiple boards.

I think the general curation by some mods is less pushing some agenda, more just enabling the shitposters they're friends with at the cost of genuine discussion.

Least thats what happened with a scene I'm rather involved in, the threads in recent years became nothing but a cesspool of negativity and most people knew who was behind the constant drama. What people didnt expect was the leak revealed one of the mods was among the group constantly causing it.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#246

Post by riazrizvi »

SunshineTheCat wrote: post #222
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.

I see it as a problem of inconsistency that is common in situations where a parochial performer has their moments on the big stage, and follows it up with faceplants.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#247

Post by patrickmay »

treesknees wrote: post #111
OvbiousError wrote: post #108

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.

4chan, the owner/company, does not operate out of the UK. It’s a US company. They are only bound to US laws. Just because UK internet users are able to establish a network connection to 4chan’s server via ISP peering agreements does not mean 4chan are subject to UK law.

This is the right framing. No site, including 4chan, is forcing their content on innocent Brits. The only way people in the UK see 4chan is by proactively establishing a connection to the site and requesting the download of data. Those users, not 4chan, are the active agents. If the UK government wants to control what its subjects request online, they should pass laws regulating that behavior.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#248

Post by yupyupyups »

piker wrote: post #129
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.co.uk value decimated by this analysis

Oh no!

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#249

Post by mikkupikku »

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.

4chan gets money by selling (with crypto) "passes" to their users. These passes allow users to post using VPNs. Being banned in the UK will increase demand for these passes, probably increasing 4chan's revenue over all.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#250

Post by DaSHacka »

dyauspitr wrote: post #140
paxiongmap wrote: post #54

"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]

Neither of these things happen, but even if either was miraculously true, should the onus be on the entirety of society to self-censor, or on the kids parents to parent properly (IE use parental controls and supervise screen time)?
Post reply on HN