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

571–580 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#571

Post by lazide »

madeofpalk wrote: post #564
YawningAngel wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

If they pack the alcohol up in a crate, and then ship it to the person after they make the order in person? Less clear yes?

If the consumer goes to a place it is legal, and consumes it there without bringing any back, most people would say ‘meh’. Depending on the product. Hard drugs and sex work, being two common exceptions that some countries get more worked up about even traveling to ‘enjoy’ it.

But ship it back (especially hard drugs or sex workers!), and almost all people get more concerned.

The issue here is exactly why customs typically is a mandatory ‘gate’ for packages AND passengers entering a country.

Similar, one could say, to a giant country level firewall?

And why it is so lucrative for smugglers, which are defacto performing a type of arbitrage eh?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#572

Post by mda »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #500
aftbit wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> though I thought Google left the market rather than bend the knee? Not even close. They bent the knee first; they left afterwards.

Can you explain what do you mean?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#573

Post by lazide »

malfist wrote: post #433
mothballed wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

buywinesonline.com (random retailer I found) says they do Buy Wines Online currently does not ship alcohol to AL, MI, MS, UT, HI, AK Says it requires an "adult signature" but anyone who's signed for fedex/ups knows they don't check your ID. I can say, when I was in high school, they did not check...

Kentucky has some weird laws. You can ship, but only if the distillery makes less than so many gallons of stuff per year

There is a wide gulf between ‘your county sheriff will get angry if they find out’ and ‘UPS/Fedex will not deliver it in a nondescript brown box’.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#574

Post by koliber »

> The [Online Safety] Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom

And so they should, within the borders of the UK.

It's illegal to own unlicensed firearms in the UK. In the US, it is legal. UK authorities can prevent ownership of firearms in the UK via penalties, prevent firms from selling firearms in the UK, and set up import controls to prevent people from importing guns bought abroad. They cannot prevent foreign companies from selling firearms abroad.

Ofcom can institute penalties for UK consumers who access illegal content, prevent firms from providing such content on UK soil, and put up firewalls to prevent people from digitally importing such content into the UK. They cannot prevent foreign companies from providing such content.

Ofcom is being lazy and is trying to offload the responsibility to foreign firms.

Safety and liberty are often at odds. Let the UK decide the balance for their citizens and let their citizens bear the benefits and costs of implementing the measures.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#575

Post by beowulfey »

4ndrewl wrote: post #534
saxenaabhi wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's serving UK users while knowing that they aren't legally allowed to.

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?

No because the sale would have had to occur in the place that it is illegal

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#576

Post by Lio »

> From my perspective more damage has been wrought to British culture by the Disneyification of Winnie-the-Pooh (big fan of EH Shephard here) than by 4Chan.

Here here!

None of what Labour are doing makes sense to me from a "tHinK oF tHE cHilDreN!!" perspective because it's so easy to get round with a VPN.

It's far more plausible, to me anyway, that's it's really a push to remove anonymity for online activity.

The chances they eventually enforce the usage of their new Digital ID as the sole form of acceptable age verification in the UK seem pretty high.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#577

Post by watwut »

riazrizvi wrote: post #269
watwut wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under no circumstances should be US businesses treated as authorities. They are not mom nor should have any kind of leadership position.

No you’re right. Instead of a multi-billion dollar organization supporting the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people, serving directly their millions of customers, we would be better off running this with a team of Oxbridge literature and PPE alumni, armed with a hodgepodge of constituent letters accompanied by stiff emails by one or two members of parliament funded by god knows who, who otherwise have no sk…

Corporations have skin in a game - namely to keep their power, prevent competition from arising, make sure the workers are squeezed with less options so that they demand less salaries.

Capitalism works when there is a competition between companies. Corporations are everything but that.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#578

Post by monerozcash »

wyager wrote: post #490
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…

4chan is not "operating in the UK". They accept and respond to packets from the UK. If the UK government doesn't like this, they can block 4chan themselves.

A darknet drug dealer could make the same argument, probably with little success.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#579

Post by lurk2 »

ryandrake wrote: post #474
lurk2 wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vote manipulation is a non-issue here because users require a minimum of 500 karma to vote, and because the site is so much smaller than Reddit it can take months to reach that threshold. Downvoting is also capped so that you're very unlikely to get pushed back below the 500 karma threshold unless you are consistently making comments that the community doesn't like. I post things I know won't be well-received here al…

What stops people from setting up and aging (or buying) sockpuppet accounts to the point where they control 10+ or even 100+ flag-capable / vote-capable HN accounts, and then using them as a network to deny or boost certain topics? This kind of behavior almost certainly goes on here.

> What stops people from setting up and aging (or buying) sockpuppet accounts to the point where they control 10+ or even 100+ flag-capable / vote-capable HN accounts, and then using them as a network to deny or boost certain topics?

It’s a single board with a full-time moderator and almost everyone on it has a background in information technology. These kinds of networks leave very obvious signatures, and the site simply isn’t a big enough place for them to hide.

> This kind of behavior almost certainly goes on here.

Do you have any examples?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#580

Post by james_in_the_uk »

inkyoto wrote: post #525
james_in_the_uk wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mu…

All goes to the saying “this is why we can’t have nice things”.
Post reply on HN