Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 451 posts

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

#431

Post by ranger_danger »

o11c wrote: post #300
ranger_danger wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> generally supported by the voters you could say the same about the US... that doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean people aren't violently voting against their own best interests.

It's a huge stretch to call the existence of 4chan in anyone's best interests. First they came for 4chan and I said nothing, because good riddance! This is not a slippery slope; this is a spring trying to return to the center. The harder the resistance at the extremes, the more energetic the oscillation will be, so if we want to minimize that, work on undermining the intolerable extremes. The sheer anarchy of the lib…

> It's a huge stretch to call the existence of 4chan in anyone's best interests.

I wasn't trying to imply that at all... I just meant that voting for age verification laws themselves were against peoples' best interest, not the blocking of any particular website.

In any case... sites like 4chan itself existing (ignoring any actual moderation issues like CP/etc. or other clearly illegal stuff), to me, simply means that free speech still exists, and I will defend their (anyone's) right to exist and to free speech if I have to. It doesn't mean I agree with/support them or their content though.

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

#432

Post by o11c »

ranger_danger wrote: post #431
o11c wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a huge stretch to call the existence of 4chan in anyone's best interests. First they came for 4chan and I said nothing, because good riddance! This is not a slippery slope; this is a spring trying to return to the center. The harder the resistance at the extremes, the more energetic the oscillation will be, so if we want to minimize that, work on undermining the intolerable extremes. The sheer anarchy of the lib…

> It's a huge stretch to call the existence of 4chan in anyone's best interests. I wasn't trying to imply that at all... I just meant that voting for age verification laws themselves were against peoples' best interest, not the blocking of any particular website. In any case... sites like 4chan itself existing (ignoring any actual moderation issues like CP/etc. or other clearly illegal stuff), to me, simply means tha…

[flagged]

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

#433

Post by IshKebab »

kayxspre wrote: post #42

This is similar to how Wikipedia reacts to Internet Watch Foundation (a UK CSAM Watchdog) when it decided to block the page "Virgin Killer" (a 1976 album by German band Scorpions) and the album cover image page. FBI found no issue with it, but the UK did. The result means ISP using the IWF blocklist are getting their traffic routed to proxy server, and Wikipedia usually blocks open proxies. Eventually, news outlet re…

Yeah similar except 4chan has no power and Wikipedia has a huge amount of power.

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

#434

Post by Intralexical »

Vespasian wrote: post #423
chii wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> still have a unified internet across the globe. which might be the end goal - the internet, with freedom of communication, is a way that the plebs can organize and resist authoritarianism. And as countries are growing increasingly authoritarian (and i include UK here), they may be planning on preventing the old free internet that has enabled so much. So as technologists here at HN, there needs to be a pre-emptive s…

I've said it for years and I'm sticking to it that you can't solve political "problems" (real or otherwise) with technology. Not for the masses and not sustainabl, It's always easier to have a paper say "do this" than finding a tech to circumvent it. Politics is fundamentally people business and involves lots of people who can't or won't understand the details of what is going on but who may still be interested in th…

You can definitely create political problems with technology. Why can't technology have a role in solving political problems too?

The problem is when tech people try apply tech to political problems crudely, without understanding or without caring about the human aspect of it. You need sociologists and political scientists to study what impact a technology will actually have, and normal people to see how they feel about it, not just programmers who may incorrectly assume that e.g. designing an open and secure protocol will automatically and directly map to creating an open and secure society.

For example, in this case, the blunt approach is "How do we design a protocol that can't be censored/monitored?" The answer is TOR, which as parent comment noted, is socially a non-starter. But maybe a better approach could be, "How do we design a protocol which removes the incentives/makes it politically untenable for people to censor/monitor it?"

One way you might approach this is to create a system that's organically useless for bad actors. Clearly different platforms have different levels of "safe" and "awful", due to their structure. Could we design a platform with such strong prosocial incentives that authoritarians are not able to fearmonger about it?

Another approach could be to chain common citizen rights to authoritarian interests. For example, the US government cannot backdoor AES, because doing so would also compromise their own communciations. Can we make it so authoritarians are forced onto the same boat as us for our other communication technologies too, and therefore disincentivized from weakening our privacy because doing so would damage theirs too?

ActivityPub, ATProto, and blockchain could also be seen as technologies that are designed to create a social structure that incentivizes specific political outcomes, with varying degrees of success.

It's people business. So you design around questions like "Where is this technology going to put different types of people, and how are they going to feel about that?"

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

#435

Post by Amezarak »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #250
mathiaspoint wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people in charge are largely hated by the electorate. They won by default effectively due to a quirk of how UK elections work (which was less of a problem when the monarch/aristocracy was still involved to counter balance things like this, but now that that's gone the state is effectively out of control.) Unless by "democracy" you mean "sleepwalking administration everyone hates" the current UK government is unus…

No post war U.K. government aside from the 2010-15 coalition had a majority of voters voting for the parties in power. 1951 came close I think. However opinion polls consistently put support for the “anti porn” bill up high amongst multiple demographics. The cause for this is a lack of computer literacy, in both government and the population, but that doesn’t really matter.

Opinion polling is largely bunk. In addition to the problem with getting a good polling sample today, questions are carefully crafted to achieve the desired results. Opinion polls are for shaping consensus, not reporting it.

Consider how badly off "will you vote R or D in 7 days" polling is in the US, even with the top national experts on the problem. Opinion polls are much, much more troublesome.

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

#436

Post by YetAnotherNick »

Kazik24 wrote: post #419
YetAnotherNick wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

QUIC or any other technology still needs domain name and both the domain name ownership and DNS could be blocked by governments. Also IP could be blocked.

There is DNS over QUIC, and in case your current Connection ID or IP is blocked during the connection, QUIC can use multiple IPs and CIDs for single connection, and CIDs are negotiated in encrypted part of packet. It's a mechanism for migrating connection over changing networks. Servers can also take advantage of that. Server could have multiple QUIC output nodes to migrate connection in case one of them is blocked.…

I am not talking man in the middle thing which DNS over QUIC solves, but lawfully telling the domain registrar to forcefully take over the domain. Also multiple IPs doesn't solve anything if all the IPs could be identified.

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

#437

Post by immibis »

Kazik24 wrote: post #419
YetAnotherNick wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

QUIC or any other technology still needs domain name and both the domain name ownership and DNS could be blocked by governments. Also IP could be blocked.

There is DNS over QUIC, and in case your current Connection ID or IP is blocked during the connection, QUIC can use multiple IPs and CIDs for single connection, and CIDs are negotiated in encrypted part of packet. It's a mechanism for migrating connection over changing networks. Servers can also take advantage of that. Server could have multiple QUIC output nodes to migrate connection in case one of them is blocked.…

There is simply cutting all the wires that connect your guys to your enemy's guys. QUIC won't solve that. Protocols which hide routing information might, since then you can't tell where the right wires are.

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

#438

Post by immibis »

behringer wrote: post #235
jonplackett wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is part of a wider trend of trying to solve real world problems with the stroke of a pen. It’s not going well.

4chan and websites like it have never been the problem.

4chan is a major part of the reason why the guy who's currently destroying the USA has the power to currently destroy the USA. That's not nothing. That's very far from nothing.
Post reply on HN