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

371–380 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#371

Post by James_K »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #354
James_K wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US businesses can get bent. Half my country is rotten and hollowed out, all the shops replaced by Amazon. Screw them. Uber wants to come over here and put our local cabbies out of work, then bring them all back on lower wages with higher fees. Screw off. Air B&B destroys affordable housing all across Europe and turns cities into tourist hell. Oracle comes over here and they're trying their damnedest to get their hand…

So ban those businesses from operating in your region. Don't pretend that Ofcom can regulate the content that is viewed around the world just because you're upset about things in your country.

I bloody wish I could! Sadly, these things aren't up to me, and the companies involved would probably pay more bribes to your gangster president to get him to sanction our economy if we tried.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#372

Post by cyanydeez »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #359
cyanydeez wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with relying on parents is that they're either reckless or simply unable to prevent the kids from smoking. By the time they're teenagers, it's pretty easy for them to access anything on the internet regardless of the controls implemented. 4chan is a cesspool, and society is worse off letting it fester, but you arn't solving this problem by "personal responsibility" of parents.

I think smoking is a little different for a few reasons. It's physically addictive with harsh withdrawal symptoms that makes it difficult to quit; and it has significant healthcare costs for the wider community when smokers eventually get sick and die prematurely. Nobody is going to get addicted and die prematurely from reading 4chan. Cleaning what you consider a cesspool is not the job of the government. These laws…

social media is clearly physically addictive. America's turned into a neonazi democracy partly because of this.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#373

Post by HDThoreaun »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #366
cosmicgadget wrote: post #235

From the attorney's post: > The infinite character of that power was most famously summed up by English lawyer Sir Ivor Jennings, who once said that “if Parliament enacts that smoking in the streets of Paris is an offence, then it is an offence”. This line is taught to every first-year English law student. Initially this seems like disrespect for another country's sovereignty. But really the crucial thing is: > We ex…

Not quite. Ofcom in their reply make their point clear: "The [Online Safety] Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom [...]" They are stating that companies operating in the UK and providing services to UK individuals, are required to conform with UK regulations in relation to those services, under UK law. As an American business, you can choose t…

4Chan operates out of the US. The UK can ban it if it wants but it can not unilaterally make demands of 4chan and expect courts to enforce them, because it has no jurisdiction over 4chan's activities.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#374

Post by James_K »

hax0ron3 wrote: post #351
James_K wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US businesses can get bent. Half my country is rotten and hollowed out, all the shops replaced by Amazon. Screw them. Uber wants to come over here and put our local cabbies out of work, then bring them all back on lower wages with higher fees. Screw off. Air B&B destroys affordable housing all across Europe and turns cities into tourist hell. Oracle comes over here and they're trying their damnedest to get their hand…

If your countrymen want to use Uber, Air B&B, Oracle, and Facebook, should you try to stop them from doing it, even if you personally dislike those companies? You are making the same argument that Trump is making with the tariffs. Personally, while I can see some good arguments for protectionism, I'd rather have the choice to decide whether or not I want to buy Chinese products, rather than the government making the…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing

Do some research on why these services are so attractive before you give your opinion on it being a good thing. What these companies are doing should be illegal under US law as well, but they have paid your president to make that issue go away.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#375

Post by Bender »

mmooss wrote: post #365
Bender wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4chan was funded by USAID? Is this an in-joke? I never said that. USAID manipulate narratives on all popular multimedia and social media sites. Anyone may post on 4chan and anyone with a 4chan-pass may use proxies and VPN's.

> USAID manipulate narratives on all popular multimedia and social media sites. I wouldn't be surprised to read that on 4chan, but on HN ... we need some credible citations. :)

Some of the text and PDF's by congress discuss some of the findings but there are other sites that reported on it in the last couple years. [1] Some documents try to justify it [2]. There are countless more documents, mostly in PDF form because people can't HTML for whatever reason. Just use "site:.gov usaid 4chan" on Google. I have more of them bookmarked on my workstation. There are also disinformation documents to counter every document. If this sounds like conspiracies I have some rabbit holes for you. Start with DHS and the Ministry of Truth.

Speaking of misinformation, there are efforts to suggest USAID is actually US AID inferring they are some type of AID organization including putting "AID" in a different color in their logo. A few times a year they contribute small amounts of resources so they can get away with saying it but they are actually the United States Agency for International Development [3] originally meant to sway public opinion in other nations but started targeting people in the USA and its allies.

I think the take-away is that everything on the internet including references and citations are probably misinformation of misinformation of misinformation. I have sympathy for AI trying to ingest all of it.

[1] - https://unherd.com/newsroom/documents-reveal-us-government-a...

[2] - https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA14/20190521/109537/HHRG...

[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_Inter...

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#376

Post by econ »

Razengan wrote: post #279
pstuart wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh please. Vote-based social networks are way too vulnerable to burying the truth and boosting lies. It just takes the first 3-4 viewers to downvote you to prevent the next 10000 people from seeing what you said. There's no downside to downvoting just because you don't like what someone says, even if it's true. And usually no amount of corrections can outshout a lie/mistake with 100+ votes.

There has to be a better formula to design this game. It seems valuable enough to explore.

It will be hard to design a formula that can only be gamed by making quality contributions.

A quality discussion requires parties who disagree, exchange of ideas and facts and ideally some kind of eventual agreement.

The hardest part is to make it enjoyable to use.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#377

Post by mikkupikku »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #313
SunshineTheCat wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don't think its unreasonable for a government to ask company to abide by its laws if it want to do business with its citizens. Where I think they are going wrong is that they are trying to levy fines rather than just blocking the business. Oh, and the whole age verification thing is bonkers. I'm a parent of 2 teenagers, I don't think its asking too much for a parent to be responsible for what children see and do on…

If you honestly believe you can control what your two teens see and do on the internet, you've either got them chained up in a closet, or you're wrong.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#378

Post by HDThoreaun »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #313
SunshineTheCat wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don't think its unreasonable for a government to ask company to abide by its laws if it want to do business with its citizens. Where I think they are going wrong is that they are trying to levy fines rather than just blocking the business. Oh, and the whole age verification thing is bonkers. I'm a parent of 2 teenagers, I don't think its asking too much for a parent to be responsible for what children see and do on…

It is not possible to censor the internet when VPNs are freely available. The more you try the more it backfires. By telling your kids they cant see a website they are sure to visit it, all they have to do is google for a free vpn.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#379

Post by [deleted] »

pessimizer wrote: post #270
hexbin010 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That hyperbole is about the scale of the US military budget. The UK is nowhere close to the US in terms of its belief in "extraterritorial power". You are taking one instance and wildly just making things up

The difference, of course, is that the US actually has extraterritorial power. The idea that you would compare the UK's perception of their power to the US's perception of its power seems to be the kind of mistake the person you're replying to is referring to. Standing next the the US when it does things (or rather to the left and two steps behind the US) is not being like the US. https://youtu.be/lJatJ-Hi2_s?t=66 mo…

[deleted]

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#380

Post by delfinom »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #366
cosmicgadget wrote: post #235

From the attorney's post: > The infinite character of that power was most famously summed up by English lawyer Sir Ivor Jennings, who once said that “if Parliament enacts that smoking in the streets of Paris is an offence, then it is an offence”. This line is taught to every first-year English law student. Initially this seems like disrespect for another country's sovereignty. But really the crucial thing is: > We ex…

Not quite. Ofcom in their reply make their point clear: "The [Online Safety] Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom [...]" They are stating that companies operating in the UK and providing services to UK individuals, are required to conform with UK regulations in relation to those services, under UK law. As an American business, you can choose t…

>As an American business, you can choose to ignore that, but that has consequences if any of your board of directors ever sets foot in the UK.

The board of directors for a private company is generally secret in the US. Only the "manager" aka president/CEO/whoever at the top is generally named publicly, as well as legal agent.

Post reply on HN