Earlier quoted context omitted.
And on an electronic delivery, is a great firewall the equivalent of customs? And therfore the only way to enforce sovereignty?
Practically, yes.
4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
561–570 of 936 posts
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#562Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply globally. The cries of a long-since-dead empire slowly fading into geopolitical irrelevance.
I didn't see it that way. It seems like NGOs and IGOs have been pushing for internet restrictions for a long time. There has suddenly been a push for age restrictions allegedly because of abuse material. This happens annually. Some international group claims there needs to be something draconian abolishing encryption, or some other privacy invading measure to stop child abuse and help security. The laws are 1000s of…
It's 90% corporate lobbying with a "do gooder" varnish
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#563Earlier quoted context omitted.
Living here the decline is tangible. And this is West Oxfordshire; not one of the poorer parts of the country. An example in microcosm: a local village suffered road flooding due to failed maintenance of water pipes. Our rent-seeking privatized water company effected the minimum repair required by regulation. The next section of old pipe burst almost immediately, flooding the road further for most of January, utterly…
Fyi, large states in the US routinely have rolling blackouts and brownouts. Texas, California (the richest state lmao), Puerto Rico, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi etc
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#564Earlier 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
Given that the nukes that the UK has is Trident, which is a US system that the UK cannot use without US cooperation [0], it seems entirely appropriate that the USA gets to decide if the UK has nukes. [0] Yes, the UK can fire them without US approval, but the actual hardware is maintained and supported by the USA, and they have to be shipped to the USA regularly for maintenance. If the USA decided that the UK should n…
The UK and France have long had a project 'on the shelf' to substitute the missiles with the French M51 ballistic missiles.
They don't want to do it, they'll do it if they have to.
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#565Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not so slowly. They've gone from a more or less respectable smaller country to more or less politically, culturally, and economically irrelevant in less than 10 years. I even question whether it's rational to allow them to have nukes; they should probably be required to give them up to some country that has a shot at remaining a stable and predictable geopolitical entity over the next century.
This is an entirely delusional twitter-brain take. Despite its problems, the UK is still a sixth largest economy, a cultural powerhouse (how many Hollywood actors are British?), with a lot of soft power, a capable and currently renewed nuclear arsenal (Astraea and Dreadnought are on track), a globe-spanning network of alliances (from AUKUS to Japan deploying to the UK first time in their history to being one of the c…
They're just lashing out, emperor has no clothes, their empire is collapsing, and those who are paying any attention at all, are fully aware of it. All they have left is to go on the internet and shit on Europe for daring to regulate their precious social media companies (that elsewhere they generally admit we would be better off without). They are desperately clutching onto this tech-company-based nationalism. It's absolutely pathetic.
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#566Earlier 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?
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#567Ofcom 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. Ofcom is probably full of non technical people who have been given a specific set of (stupid) instructions including that if its on the internet, its a product being sold to the UK.
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#568Ofcom 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…
How silly of them. Obviously, only the US jurisdiction can do that.
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#569Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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?
Given how the situations w.r.t Ukraine & Iran escalated, the US is the only country that has specifically and publicly demonstrated it's inability on both counts. We can't give Ukraine their nukes back because they were decommissioned (and they were rotting at the time), but there'd be no nation more deserving. Corollary: no individual nation is able to shoulder such responsibilities.
NATO is bad for the world so any one fighting it are pretty cool. Which seems to be Russia and Korea.
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#570Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What were these 'several countries'? Iran? Cuba? North Korea? It doesn't matter which those were, we were obliged to respect laws of the European country we were incorporated, not US ones.
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…
> The European Union does not recognise the extra-territorial application of laws adopted by third countries and considers such effects to be contrary to international law.
(yes the irony is palpable)
> The blocking statute prohibits compliance by EU operators with any requirement or prohibition based on the specified foreign laws.
It is illegal to comply with certain US sanctions in the EU. This is most likely what GP is talking about.
https://finance.ec.europa.eu/eu-and-world/open-strategic-aut...