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

561–570 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#561

Post by immibis »

iamacyborg wrote: post #533
miohtama wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bar for British is arresting old ladies saying nasty things online, so practically their bar is already gone.

No, the older women are being arrested for protesting in the streets in support of an organisation our government has deemed to be aligned with terrorism. It’s entirely silly but not as silly as your example.

No, the older women are being arrested for protesting in the streets against an organisation that is committing terrorism, because the government has deemed that actual terrorism is not terrorism and opposing terrorism is the real terrorism, and a bunch of nonsensical things like that.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#562

Post by immibis »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #359
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.

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…

There used to be speculation that smokers actually cost less to the government, since they get lung cancer and die before they would get their pensions, or soon after, and therefore the government wanted people to smoke.

I mean, point 1 in favour of this theory is the fact that tobacco is legal, while most drugs aren't.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#563

Post by immibis »

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…

Is the democrat party on the left?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#564

Post by madeofpalk »

YawningAngel wrote: post #544
4ndrewl wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting view. If I were to fly to the USA, purchase something that was illegal in my home country (and explicitly state I was going to take it back home), then took it back home - would the vendor be prosecuted?

If they came to your home country, very possibly yes.

? Of course they wouldn't.

Bartenders from other countries don't get locked up the moment they enter the US because they served alcohol to someone (a US citizen?) between 18 and 21. The US does not have jurisdiction over alcohol sales in other countries.

In this scenario, what's more likely to be illegal is bringing the item into the country.

It's difficult to make physical analogies to these types of internet laws. What makes them 'tricky' is how they are not physical.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#565

Post by madeofpalk »

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”.

What about marijunana? It's absurd for the UK government to try and go after a legal California weed store.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#566

Post by flancian »

Razengan wrote: post #493
econ wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has to be a better formula to design this game. It seems valuable enough to explore. It will be hard to design a formula that can only be gamed by making quality contributions. A quality discussion requires parties who disagree, exchange of ideas and facts and ideally some kind of eventual agreement. The hardest part is to make it enjoyable to use.

Maybe transparent AI is the only way to fairly govern masses of people? Let people regularly vote on which prompts should be added/removed, and have the AI justify all of its decisions, show which information it used etc.

I believe this is likely true and will become evident in time to most, but not all, carbon based systems.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#567

Post by simmerup »

antisol wrote: post #98

This reminds me of when Australia tried to force twitter to block a video globally: https://news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/elon-musk-wins-latest-c... In one of the more enlightened things Elon has done in the last few years, he fought back, and he won. Interestingly, here in AU, there was a storm of media outrage at the time, saying all kinds of nasty things about Musk, making all kinds of assertions about how he was s…

Hopefully the machinery of various governments will continue to grind away at silicons valleys influence.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#568

Post by simmerup »

vkazanov wrote: post #73
mkesper wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adults grooming children in chats is absolutely a thing, this is completely different from talking any way they feel like to their peers face to face.

Grooming is exactly what scared the shit out of me in my kid's Discord. Teenagers promoting sex to children. Well these idiots at least have a hormonal excuse. But adults hanging out online with children and teenagers... I don't remember this in my late 90s LAN chats.

I remember it in late 90s neopets forums and habbo hotel

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#569

Post by littlestymaar »

madeofpalk wrote: post #565
littlestymaar wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What about marijunana? It's absurd for the UK government to try and go after a legal California weed store.

If the California stores ships to the UK, you can be certain that they will.

And they'd be right to do so as a country has sovereignty over what is allowed or not in their country, not matter the country of origin of the seller.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#570

Post by 1oooqooq »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #366
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…

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…

your comment seems very insightful but for the layman that I am it seems to ignore the source of international law reach.

the usa does at lot of leg work to set up legal frameworks, suck as forcing transpacific "partnership", which enforce usa IP law overseas etc.

they can enforce some things, like gambling and financial rules, and now intellectual property overseas because there are specific accords for those. every thing else, even hacking and spying, they must wait for the "criminal" to land on it's jurisdiction.

why is this changing anything on all of that?

also, your example of google/china would let this play out opposite of what you suggest: uk gov would please US law to keep doing business there. i fail to see the relevance on that also.

Post reply on HN