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

401–410 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#401

Post by pclmulqdq »

James_K wrote: post #371
pclmulqdq wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The US has great relations with many countries that ban AirBnB or Uber. The reason they operate in your country is because the people in your country want them.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#402

Post by IlikeKitties »

EarlKing wrote: post #382
IlikeKitties wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're correct though, that was /pol/s origin story. That Containment worked roughly as well as the one in Chernobyl though.

Objection: The Chernobyl containment building generally speaking does its job. /pol/, on the other hand, leaks like an incontinent old man in a retirement home. "Containment" only works if you have jannies that actually sweep it up. 4chan, much like Voat, suffers a problem of people spamming up boards and threads with unrelated crap that is ostensibly supposed to be kept to other boards/threads (like /pol/). The repu…

> Objection: The Chernobyl containment building generally speaking does its job.

The Sarcophagus and the new containment building sure, I meant the original one before the accident.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#403

Post by trothamel »

flumpcakes wrote: post #398
HDThoreaun wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why wouldn't it have the power to hold that entity accountable? Literally because the entity is not under the jurisdiction of the UK. The UK can force domestic companies to block the website but they cant force the website itself to do anything. The claims of fines against 4chan are therefore nonsensical. Probably just part of the legal proceedings prior to blocking the site I guess but still strange to see.

It does have 'jurisdiction' because it applies to the citizens: it is offering a service to UK citizens. If I had a website operated outside of the US, where you can download US citizens private medical records and phone conversations, I would be liable to breaking US law. If you do not want to be held accountable to a regions laws, then you do not offer a service to or deal with data that relates to that regions cit…

Simply offering a service to UK citizens isn't enough to provide jurisdiction. If I run a lemonade stand, and a UK citizen walks up a pays a dollar for a glass of lemonade, then that doesn't give the UK jurisdiction over the lemonade stand.

That's what's happening here - a webserver is operating entirely out of the UK, with no nexus. UK citizens send requests to it - just like all other countries citizens do, so either the website would be covered by all laws or just the places where it has nexus.

This is especially true in the US, where speech is strongly protected - making Ofcom's assertion that its regulation overrides the first amendment especially egregious. The UK government's behavior here is a bit shameful.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#404

Post by stickfigure »

flumpcakes wrote: post #398
HDThoreaun wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why wouldn't it have the power to hold that entity accountable? Literally because the entity is not under the jurisdiction of the UK. The UK can force domestic companies to block the website but they cant force the website itself to do anything. The claims of fines against 4chan are therefore nonsensical. Probably just part of the legal proceedings prior to blocking the site I guess but still strange to see.

It does have 'jurisdiction' because it applies to the citizens: it is offering a service to UK citizens. If I had a website operated outside of the US, where you can download US citizens private medical records and phone conversations, I would be liable to breaking US law. If you do not want to be held accountable to a regions laws, then you do not offer a service to or deal with data that relates to that regions cit…

Someone has to be willing to extradite. I'm sure China, Russia, and Iran would love to prosecute all those pesky political dissidents abroad.

I'll be pretty shocked if someone ever gets extradited out of the US for not showing a cookie banner.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#405

Post by knorker »

flumpcakes wrote: post #352

I think the premise of this is simple, and a lot of people seem to not be understanding this... The UK can make a law and apply it however they see fit. 4Chan is providing a service to UK people (a website you can access) and is not implementing the law. Ultimately the UK cannot enforce this law until money destined to/from 4Chan passes through the UK or people associated with the site visit UK territories. In practi…

> why wouldn't it have the power to hold that entity accountable?

If I transmit insults of dear leader Kim Jung Un on amateur radio, then those radio waves will reach DPRK. I likely would be breaking DPRK law.

Why wouldn't they have the power? Same reason my decree that guns are now banned in the US is not even refuted, but ignored.

4chan has no obligation or even reason to even respond to the UK except as entertainment (this reply was entertaining), and to send a message to the US that (in its opinion) the US government cooperating with the UK on this would be illegal by US law, the only law that matters to the US legal system. Other countries laws only matter insofar as they are allowed by US law. Foreign laws will not get US constitution bypass unless the US constitution itself allows it.

It's as if DPRK demanded to have a US citizen extradited in order to be executed for blasphemy. All that US citizen cares about is to give a heads up to the US that "if these people come knocking, tell them to go fuck themselves".

What is the UK government going to do, send bobbies over to attack 4chan owners with nerve gas on US soil?

What's the alternative? I'm sure there are countries where it's illegal for women to show their faces on TV. Why wouldn't that country have the power to hold any website where women's faces are shown accountable?

On a more depressing note, as is super clear in the US lately, crime is perfectly legal, if your friend (or POTUS you bribed) orders you to not be prosecuted. Or pardons you for being a drug kingpin and mobster ordering murders of innocent people (Ross Ulbricht).

Power ultimately comes from the exercise of violence. The UK cannot exercise state violence on US soil. That's a US monopoly under very harsh penalty. On US soil only US law (or in the case of Trump, lawlessness) can de facto be exercised.

Also, from their reply:

> 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.

Why should parisians care? Why would France cooperate with enforcing such laws?

If POTUS orders that taking $50k in cash as a bribe is not to be prosecuted, then you won't be prosecuted.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#406

Post by knorker »

littlestymaar wrote: post #83
jojobas wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case is more like UK bans selling cigarettes and tries going after a Parisian tobacconist.

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

It does if the attempted enforcement is sending a notice of a fine to Pablo Escobar.

Ok then, thank you, I'll file that demand as appropriate.

Now if the UK sends warships to the country, ok. Good luck with sending warships to invade the US.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#407

Post by exoverito »

cyanydeez wrote: post #372
jay_kyburz wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Psychologically perhaps, but to say physically addictive is not precise.

The government in general has been becoming increasingly authoritarian and centralized far before social media, see the abuses of the CIA and MK ULTRA, Operation Mockingbird, COINTELPRO, the War on Terror. You use the term neonazi, yet I hope you're honest enough to recognize the left also has dark authoritarian impulses. It was only a few years ago that we had ruinous lockdowns, widespread censorship, illegal mandates for experimental medical interventions, mostly peaceful riots, a 30% spike in homicides, anarcho-tyranny with the prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Penny, etc.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#408

Post by malfist »

mothballed wrote: post #343
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.

You can legally order pipe tobacco and cigars on the internet in the US without showing ID. When I was a kid you could do it with wine too, and I doubt that's changed. I don't find it to be a problem.

Depends on the state. You absolutely cannot order alcohol online in Kentucky

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#409

Post by jay_kyburz »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #378
jay_kyburz wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think buy the time your kids can order, pay for, and configure a VPN they are old enough to look at boobies on the internet.
Post reply on HN