Live data from Hacker News

4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

bbc.com

551–560 of 936 posts

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#551
post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're serving US customers. You are doing business in the US, and therefore you are subject to US law. What about when a customer requests a refund, do you just pretend US consumer protection laws don't apply to that customer? Or to turn your logic around, can American corporations do business in Europe while just completely ignoring the GDPR and all other European laws? Laws are not a buffet. You choose to do busin…

Love contrasting this post with Americans' reactions when they're presented with a GDPR cookie banner.

Those cookie banners shouldn’t be presented to Americans.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a horrific law. Criticizing certain religions and institutions are likely to offend many people. Criticizing a politician or criminal or bureaucrat is quite likely to cause distress to them and their supporters. > The go-to example of the limits of free speech in context of the U.S. legal system is "Shouting fire in a crowded theater". The U.K. laws are the same in principle but a little further along the spec…

Like I said, it is a spectrum. You draw the line at physical violence, an entirely arbitrary line, whereas the U.K. goes further and continues to emotional violence. And before you argue that there is no such thing as emotional violence: do you agree that some emotional harm can be worse than some physical harm? I'd much rather be punched than subjected to the worst emotional trauma I've experienced in my life. > In…

> Like I said, it is a spectrum.

No it really isn't.

> You draw the line at physical violence, an entirely arbitrary line, whereas the U.K. goes further and continues to emotional violence.

It must appear as a spectrum to you because you've been taken in by propaganda used by authoritarians and fundamentalists to justify using actual violence and censorship to crush dissent and criticism.

There is no such thing as emotional violence. It's hurt feelings. There is no "before" about it, and we don't need to agree on anything, you're just wrong.

> And before you argue that there is no such thing as emotional violence: do you agree that some emotional harm can be worse than some physical harm? I'd much rather be punched than subjected to the worst emotional trauma I've experienced in my life.

Non sequitur.

A society where people are reliant on the government to protect them from having their feelings hurt by hearing other people's opinions is not a good or sustainable one.

The other thing is that I guarantee you this is totally selectively enforced and prosecuted, which is a hallmark of these kinds of authoritarian laws. People whose thoughts and opinions are considered verboten or threatening to the regime I'm sure have little or no protection of their feelings and sensibilities when they are insulted by other people's opinions and comments.

> I'm not going to defend U.K. laws but it is patently absurd to say something like this is in the context of a conversation about U.S. vs. U.K. free speech laws when the U.S. courts allow schools to ban certain books because of "protecting feelings of people who could just choose to not read, listen, or get themselves worked up about it". Heaven forbid a Florida student learns about homosexuality, won't anyone think of the parents?

I don't know what point you are trying to make here or if you know what freedom of speech is. Government schools and government education bureaucrats developing policies about curriculum and teaching materials doesn't seem to offer useful commentary about freedom of speech, so I really don't know how to respond to your question.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#554

Ofcom is currently threatening a Canadian forum that exists to help people with depression. Ofcom claims that geoblocking blocking the UK is "insufficient": > I've also gone back to Ofcom explicitly telling them the UK was now geoblocked (twice now) and I received a response that this was insufficient. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1rk690v/i_ru... Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply gl…

> Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally.

And enforceable. Let them fail but they have money behind them,

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't Trump admit that Musk fixed it for him?

The only election for the president that matters is the electoral college. What the citizens are voting on is a referendum to choose the electors (and in some states it is not binding). You might try to argue that the referendum was rigged somehow, but rigging the electoral college voting is even less plausible.

[dead]

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's deliberate isolationism, the same isolationism that drove Brexit

There are two kinds of "isolationism". In the first, the person becomes a hermit refusing to interact with anyone. In the second, a cult grabs hold of the person and isolates them from their families and loved ones so they can brainfuck them. And, I suspect this has happened to the UK. England doesn't want to be a land for the English, because to do so would make them racist. They have strength in their diversity. Bl…

[flagged]

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#558
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people here are also more fond of 4chan than the average citizen, and also in general rather fond of technological freedom of anything. Makes sense, being players basically in the team about to get a red card. Like it or not, the global internet became a convenient way to skirt local laws and I don't see any reason why exempting something in one place only because it originated in some other place. Is now enf…

Of course, because they're not proposing "apply our laws in our country" they are proposing "apply our laws in another country". If you want to enforce this law you need to do it the CCP way (punish your ISPs for alllowing it into the country and monitor your citizens for accessing it) because you don't have the jurisdiction to enforce it otherwise. Let's not forget how many UK criminals have made fun of Kim Jong Un'…

Why should it be done that way?

If a country has media or broadcast standards laws, and you distribute or broadcast content in that country that violates those laws, that’s on you. The country can just fine you if you chose not to comply. Just the same as they would if you were doing it while living in that country. You’re not obliged to care about the fine if you don’t live there and never intend to travel there. But if you do then you’re going to be subject to their laws at that point, for violating those laws when you distributed that content in that country.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#559
post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the US have nukes and they’re hardly stable and predictable. Allow them to have nukes, who are you lol

>who are you lol The US. Who else on the planet would have the effective power to possibly even think about who should and shouldn't have them, while plausibly being able to do anything about it?

Then you're in no position to throw rocks. The US is currently humiliating itself on the world stage in a fashion that makes Brexit look positively sage in comparison.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#560
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more like the UK fining Parisian bars that courier alcohol to under-18s in the UK .

Not exactly. It’s like fining Parisian bars to hand over alcohol to couriers without checking to whom couriers will deliver it. Couriers = all involved network providers.

The Parisian bars are the ones writing the address on the package not the courier.
Post reply on HN