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

521–530 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#521

Post by fnord123 »

oefrha wrote: post #519
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…

Ironic considering that U.S. does long arm enforcement all the time, often successfully. You can often read stories about U.S. seizing random foreign websites, bitcoins and shit on this very forum. I guess the part where Britain looks “very silly” is that UK’s long arm is much more likely to be ignored than US’s long arm since British Empire’s sun has set? > as if we haven’t yet shucked-off the American Revolution, l…

[flagged]

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#522

Post by FMecha »

thih9 wrote: post #517

> The kids already know how to use VPNs to circumvent firewalls Vpn is not always a solution, at least in my experience (nordvpn). I haven’t tried 4chan, but e.g. reddit rejects anonymous vpn traffic (shows an error message, forces login); streaming platforms also often don’t work.

4chan has a rule banning use of proxies/VPNs and enforces this with IP range bans.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#523

Post by j16sdiz »

aftbit wrote: post #471
PaulRobinson wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>every tech company engages in regulatory alignment for the entire Middle East Can someone expand on this a bit? I'm passingly familiar with the Chinese Google example (though I thought Google left the market rather than bend the knee?) but I know nearly nothing about the Middle East angle.

They bend the knee for censorship requirement. (Not only that, they provided machine learning based filtering service for other Chinese search engine at the time)

According to Google, the China government tried to infiltrate Google's internal computer system. In response, Google stopped the censorship over night, and withdraw from China market shortly afterward.

I still remember night, when _all_ Chinese search engine stopped censoring because Google stopped their filtering service.

The China tech company have evolved much since those days, and they are now much better at censoring compare to what Google had in the early days of the internet.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#524

Post by aydyn »

6r17 wrote: post #339
grayhatter wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These slowly degrade societies, like it or not. So, thought crimes?

This is not reddit. I do not understand how such low hanging opinions are on this. There have been publications and tons of enactments from both govs, research labs, companies just sucking out every social media. It's not like we are not warning you, you have netflix, amazon, google, whatever you want - somehow pirating an American movie is an offense in Europe - but abiding by the same logic is not acceptable - same…

Why do u put a space before a question mark? thats super weird bro u should try to learn anglais better

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#525

Post by inkyoto »

james_in_the_uk wrote: post #516
inkyoto wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was delineating a particular nuance – that the mere utilisation of Cloudflare does not, by itself, render 4Chan subject to the classification of «targeting UK users», save for the instance in which they issue a distinct monthly remittance to an entity denominated «Cloudflare UK» for the edge node services provided during the preceding period. I.e., if a machine (the Cloudflare control plane) elects to route traffic…

Agreed. I was merely citing use of Cloudflare as evidentiary, not determinative. I am not so sure about the relevance of billing entity. I suspect that how Cloudflare chooses to bill is as much driven by tax (especially transfer pricing) as anything else. I also think there are as-yet-unanswered questions about the role of CDNs and similar “global” infrastructure providers, and the impact of using their services as s…

Likewise, thank you for a meaningful and civilised discourse.

To expand upon your observations regarding the role and the function of global infrastructure providers — what I find most disquieting is the manner in which the Internet has degenerated from a realm of open discourse, at times resembling the untamed frontier, into a labyrinthine construct of proliferating legislation and extrajudicial interference by a multitude of states.

The result is a regulatory morass so burdensome that, in certain instances, it proves more expedient to disregard an entire jurisdiction than to endeavour compliance with its statutory dictates. Even when such legislative efforts are conceived without malice, their consequences are seldom benign — the attendant escalation in implementation costs can be considerable. By way of illustration, conformity with the EU’s GDPR must now be accounted for at the very architectural level of a solution, with financial implications that are far from negligible.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#527

Post by knorker »

flumpcakes wrote: post #416
knorker wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 entertainm…

I think you are confusing breaking a law, and enforceability. I agree with the gist of your argument though, the UK cannot _force_ a US only company, but it doesn't change the fact it is breaking UK law. > I likely would be breaking DPRK law. Why wouldn't they have the power? They do as a sovereign nation. But what most people seem to be missing is that you're not going to DPRK and the US Government doesn't care so y…

> I think you are confusing breaking a law, and enforceability.

I'm not. My comment and other replies to you are telling you that YOU are.

We're saying that your question doesn't make any sense.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#528

Post by [deleted] »

James_K wrote: post #374
hax0ron3 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#529

Post by ares623 »

exoverito wrote: post #407
cyanydeez wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How is nicotine different from dopamine? Both are addictive chemistry. One comes in little sticks, the other comes in a black glass and metal slab.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#530

Post by wartywhoa23 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #335
martin-t wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The evolution of governance of online communities mirrors that of the real-world. First, everyone did what they wanted. As conflict became more common, power hierarchies started to emerge. we're now at a stage where every place needs to be governed, yet its members have no influence over who does it. I have online communities will transition into something resembling democracy where moderators are elected from member…

>While HN is fairly lenient HN is NOT fairly lenient. HN has a very strict set of rules (applied with infinite discretion) and absolute bunches of tiny rules and quirks that are completely hidden and no real transparency of any kind. HN has basically an official party line for heavens sake! This is a site for disseminating information about VC things and driving engagement about things that VCs want people to talk ab…

> Humans do not pick or latch on to narratives that are correct

Oh, the Party-Approved Correct Narrative.

Nazi/fascist narratives were sure as hell correct in 1930s-1940s Germany, mind you, and have been becoming correct again worldwide since 2020.

Post reply on HN