4chan will refuse to pay daily online safety fines, lawyer tells BBC

Post by ethbr1 » Fri, Aug 22, 2025, 9:49 PM UTC

sunshine-o wrote: post #365

bko wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard things about UK arresting people for social media posts but thought it was just a few cases cherry picked. But I recently looked up the scale of arrests and it's really insane. Police are arresting over 12,000 people each year for social media posts and other online communications deemed “grossly offensive,” “indecent,” “obscene,” or “menacing.” This averages to around 33 arrests per day. These arrests are pr…

By the way at that scale it is very counterproductive. If you are gonna end up being arrested for protesting or giving your opinion, it is funnier to do it in the streets than on facebook. And it is probably much easier to be anonymous nowadays in the streets with a mask than on social media. This is probably why the UK went in flame recently, the government cracked down on the Internet and people just went in the st…

Post by prmoustache » Fri, Aug 22, 2025, 9:56 PM UTC

oblique wrote: post #312

ionwake wrote: post #302

The next step I assume is banning VPN use for anyone under 18 in the UK, followed by only allowing academics or certain roles to use them.

Banning VPNs seems effectively impossible. Any ip address can act as a vpn. There are also zero identity providers like mullvad.

Post by lenerdenator » Fri, Aug 22, 2025, 10:05 PM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #200

lenerdenator wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the representatives in Congress gave the tariff power to the Presidency. Now, did they do that with the approval of the voters? Ostensibly, yes, but in reality, it's not that clear-cut. This would be more like if the Thirteen Colonies had MPs and those MPs still voted in favor of the Stamp Act, or they voted to delegate the power to tariff to someone with a severe personality disorder.

There are lawsuits arguing that Congress didn’t give the executive branch this power. They seem pretty persuasive to me and they’re successful so far, but we’ll see how the appeals process turns out.

Post by hellojesus » Fri, Aug 22, 2025, 10:15 PM UTC

greenavocado wrote: post #343

hellojesus wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can try. > And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lai…

Would have. Should have. Could have. The reality is the authoritarians won for decades.

Post by scythe » Fri, Aug 22, 2025, 10:25 PM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #333

scythe wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal of the policy is supported by the voters. The polls used to measure this are shifty at best about the implementation details. Who doesn't want to prevent kids from looking at pornography? But plenty of things are popular if you ask people in a way that makes them ignore how it plays out in real life. Laws against tall buildings are a pretty good example. Land reform was extremely popular in many socialist co…

> Land reform was extremely popular in many socialist countries until it actually happened Actually, land reforms were spectacularly popular—and very successful—in many countries like Guatemala or Vietnam (coincidentally, two places that were invaded by the US in an attempt to revert those reforms, one successful and the other not).