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

251–260 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#251

Post by tamimio »

From https://prestonbyrne.com/2025/10/16/the-ofcom-files/

> consistent with the UK legal doctrine known as parliamentary supremacy, which holds that the UK Parliament has theoretically unlimited power

This is also true in Canada for the most part, while in theory with the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as part of the Constitution Act, 1982. This Act prescribes that “the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada” (s.52), Thus constitutional supremacy replaced Parliamentary supremacy in Canada, in reality, the parliament can invoke s. 33 of the Charter, the notwithstanding clause, allows Parliament and the provincial legislatures to override certain provisions of the Charter, Canadian legislatures are still partially supreme. Which means the law can stand even if it violates those rights. This clause, which can only be used for a five-year term that is renewable, applies to specific sections of the Charter, including fundamental freedoms, legal rights, and equality rights, but not democratic, mobility, or Aboriginal rights.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#252

Post by pstuart »

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 moderation of this site is top notch and a key component of its quality, and I say that as someone admonished by dang more than once.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#253

Post by 8note »

iamnothere wrote: post #99
littlestymaar wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which doesn't sounds so absurd if you replace “tobacco” with “cocaine” and “Parisian” with “Colombian”.

It still sounds absurd to me. Nations should not be in the business of passing laws that apply to extraterritorial actions of foreign citizens. I know that it happens, especially with the US, but IMHO it’s just not how things should work. This has become far too normalized due to decades of bad behavior by the US, and it’s going to come back to bite us as US power declines. Just wait until 30 years from now when you…

The end punishment will still end up being that 4chan is not allowed to do business in the UK. If they want their website to work in the UK, they should follow UK law.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#254

Post by parliament32 »

tgv wrote: post #181
ibejoeb wrote: post #139

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.

In the complaint[1], they explicitly state "4chan has no presence, operations, or infrastructure outside of the territorial limits of the United States." So, no, 4chan is not bringing their services into the UK: UK users send requests that travel to the US and hit 4chan servers/CDNs there.

[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71209929/1/4chan-commun...

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#255

Post by watwut »

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.

Under no circumstances should be US businesses treated as authorities. They are not mom nor should have any kind of leadership position.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#256

Post by fair_enough »

It seems the once "Great" Britain cannot let go of its grandiose delusions of ruling over and "civilizing" the entire known world.

I've always held onto the suspicion that the distinction between left-wing and right-wing social views is more aesthetic than philosophical. All you have to do is tell a leftist "no", and they turn into everything they hate about their parents.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#257

Post by 833 »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #185
CaptainOfCoit wrote: post #123

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.

Blocking UK users from your service does not put you out of scope of OSA, according to Ofcom.

4 days ago:

> "Services who choose to restrict access rather than protect UK users remain on our watchlist "

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#258

Post by sensanaty »

mikkupikku wrote: post #133
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 does have very minor explicit support for UK users; on some boards it puts a UK flag on their post (as it does with all other countries and territories.) It could perhaps be argued that this constitutes the site being consciously designed with UK users in mind. Hardly matters though, there's nothing the UK can do about it. They aren't a superpower anymore and it's time for them to realize it.

That's only on /pol/ though, and it's based on GeoIP. No other board has flags other than complete meme ones like /int/

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#259

Post by array_key_first »

ceejayoz wrote: post #212
array_key_first wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but wifi costs money - only adults have wifi. It's effectively already age restricted.

Is this a joke or reference I'm missing?

No it's not a joke at all.

When you buy wifi, they already make sure you're an adult. They ask for proof of residence, you sign a contract. Children cannot buy wifi. Go ahead and try - no ISP is going to write a contract with a child.

Wifi, like tobacco and alcohol, is already age restricted.

The problem is the adults buying it then turn around and just... Hand it to children. That's not the fault of the law or society.

Like, okay the store clerk might make sure when I buy a pack of menthols I'm of age. But if I just go home and hand my kid the pack of menthols, all bets are off. That's not the store clerks problem, he can't and won't get in trouble for that.

Parents and establishments are being stupid here. Same applies for public wifi. Don't want kids to use it? Okay, give it a password, only tell the password to adults. Easy peasy.

The law can't stop parents from being stupid.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#260

Post by 833 »

Ofcom said this four days ago:

> "Services who choose to restrict access rather than protect UK users remain on our watchlist"

How does withdrawing service from UK users not "protect UK users"? How does age verifying UK IPs provide more protection than withdrawing the service entirely?

It is about power and control, and nothing else.

Post reply on HN