Live data from Hacker News

Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

theregister.com

51–60 of 260 posts

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#51

I was not aware of the main driver, not mentioned, sanctioned suicide even existing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctioned_Suicide

The people who run that site should be in jail. I think seriously encouraging suicide with details of methods crosses a line.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#52
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious why Trump would even care and, if so, why he wouldn't lean toward his constituency that is largely in favor of these laws (see Texas, Florida, Utah, etc.).

I think there is a difference between straight p0rn, and a discussion forum that often posts NSFW images. 4chan is also the originator of the Pepe the Frog memes, and claims (whether people believe it or not) to have meme-d Trump into the Whitehouse in 2016.

You saying that 1. since 4chan is a message board Trump might change his tariff policy to save it where he would't if it was a porn site and 2. Trump feels he owes them for 2016?

I think neither a murky ideological battle nor a decade-old debt matters much to the president. And it probably matters that the UK made a tariff deal already, so changing terms would be a big act of self-sabotage.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#54
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a difference between straight p0rn, and a discussion forum that often posts NSFW images. 4chan is also the originator of the Pepe the Frog memes, and claims (whether people believe it or not) to have meme-d Trump into the Whitehouse in 2016.

You saying that 1. since 4chan is a message board Trump might change his tariff policy to save it where he would't if it was a porn site and 2. Trump feels he owes them for 2016? I think neither a murky ideological battle nor a decade-old debt matters much to the president. And it probably matters that the UK made a tariff deal already, so changing terms would be a big act of self-sabotage.

I guess time will tell who's right?

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#55
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starmer doesn't have very long, and he seems to be trying to accelerate his relocation out of government.

I think he is stuck, like the Prime Minister of France. He has a party that won't tolerate spending cuts of the required scale, and an economy that can't tolerate further tax raises. He also has the charisma of a wet sock, which doesn't help.

So another thirty years of Tory rule (or worse) because Labor did a dog that caught the car. Hurray.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#56

Many people are saying this is symbolic and cannot be enforced. Unfortunately, that's just not true. Look at what happened to the founder of Telegram. Some jurisdiction decides you're violating their laws, all you need to do is catch a connecting flight or take a vacation on their soil or a place that will eagerly extradite, and you're a political prisoner. What happens if one of the officers of 4Chan or Gab is on a…

Durov's plane wasn't redirected to France, nor were the French planning to extradite him anywhere else for all we know. He willingly landed his own private jet in Paris.

I understand what point you're trying to make, but Protasevich would have been a better example. Beware of whose airspace you fly over.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#57

4chan will pay in two more weeks

huh? what makes you think of that?

"Two more weeks" is a meme phrase used when an event will never actually happen. For example: "trust the plan! just two more weeks until XYZ" when XYZ will not happen.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#60
post #8

At this point we need big names to choose to remove their services in the UK so the government gets the message.

Presumably the "big names" are able to (or have already) implemented the requirements under the law and have an economic and reputational incentive to comply.
Post reply on HN