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

61–70 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#61

Post by LordN00b »

tasuki wrote: post #35

> The Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this expressly includes conducting investigations into, and imposing penalties for, non-compliance by providers of online services with their duties under the Act. […] The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect I don't see anything wrong here: Sure, Ofcom can have th…

There is plenty of precedence for this, and I am about to fudge a bunch of details. The basic point is that the United Kingdom can make any law it sees fit to any place or person. Even though it may only exercise punitive issues once they arrival inside the physical jurisdiction. So the example I was taught, the UK can pass a law banning smoking in Paris, but may not arrest/fine until such criminal trespassers get off the ferry in UK. This means that the Sovereign power is omni-whatevers, unless you explicitly say otherwise eg The UK Legislated their way out of South Africa and Canada expilictly. If 4Chans money ever passes through a UK bank, I'm sure Ofcom will grab what they can. It's a very British shakedown.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#62

Post by skeezyjefferson »

cdfsdsadsa wrote: post #46
skeezyjefferson wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in all seriousness, what do you fear?

Abusive online relationships. An attention-suck that I can't handle as an adult, with the corresponding lack of development of other life skills that I consider essential to a successful and fulfilled life. I say "I consider", because skills self-evidently essential to a good life (emotional regulation, focus and attention span, ability to read other people's emotional states, effective communication, physical skills…

in terms of speech development, TV was found to be a massive benefit in increasing vocabulary - how are you so sure the internet (nebulously defined as that is) is detrimental to communication abilities, arent they on there talking to their friends?. And if we are talking about the internet in general and not just twitter/tiktok, then its largely NOT doomscrolling and ragebait. Hackernews (heck, every single news organisation EVER) has an "algorithm" for "increasing engagement", books are written to increase engagement, its been going on for centuries but only since social media appeared do we suddenly dislike it.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#63

Post by 4ggr0 »

IlikeKitties wrote: post #59
4ggr0 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there proof mods push general threads or curate content? how does this relate to what i said? i get the "we're a free platform where everyone can do everything and no one is responsible for anything", just a cheap excuse from my POV considering the unhinged, doxxy culture on there. sure, there are cute boards, nice. i am talking about the inhumane, unhinged slurry of shit. "Sure my neighbour has a couple of cada…

To say 4chan isn't a cesspit of racism, mysogony, anti-semitism and disgusting content would be a lie. But the same is true for twitter and people buy their blue checkmarks there all the time.

> the same is true for twitter

i agree :)

> people buy their blue checkmarks there all the time

sadly, yes.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#64

Post by jojobas »

pavlov wrote: post #43
tasuki wrote: post #35

> The Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this expressly includes conducting investigations into, and imposing penalties for, non-compliance by providers of online services with their duties under the Act. […] The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect I don't see anything wrong here: Sure, Ofcom can have th…

It’s presumably meant to be effective against global corporations like Meta and Google that have significant operations in the UK. They can be liable for non-compliance globally and Ofcom doesn’t have to show it occurred within the UK.

Yep, then and their German counterpart have many times asked Facebook to censor stuff for the entire world and they've complied every time.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#65

Post by 4ggr0 »

IlikeKitties wrote: post #49
4ggr0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the rasion d'etre of 4chan can probably be discussed forever, but i can't imagine donating money to such a vile, hate-filled platform. surely there are better causes fighting for the same things, right? i know, freedom of speech, it's your money and not mine, etc.

4chan isn't all /b/ and /pol/. /g/ the technology board can be a very interesting place. And its Members often create technology that absolutely suprises me. Just recently we started an effort to retake the usenet and are actively repopulating alt.cyberpunk.tech with genuine good discussions.

> 4chan isn't all /b/ and /pol/

maybe this is my bias, could very well be. maybe i should give it a 10th chance and browse the more useful boards.

i guess /g/ would be a start, do you have other recommendations? i mean i'm open to change my mind. for me 4chan stands for alt-right pipelines, spreading far-right ideology online etc., so i just really have a sour taste in my mouth when thinking about it.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#66

Post by xethos »

alias_neo wrote: post #55
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but you'd need to apply it to all phones, because what's stopping a kid from buying an adult smartphone if they have the money? And smartphones can be dirt cheap. Also remember that the pop-up is an industry choice, the rules only mandate that a user should opt in, not how. No laws mandate the cookie banners, no regulations say they should be obnoxious.

> Sure, but you'd need to apply it to all phones, because what's stopping a kid from buying an adult smartphone There's no need, that's already the case. All phones (the network account attached to the SIM actually, not the phone itself) comes with a content filter enabled by default in the UK, adult or not.

> All phones (the network account attached to the SIM actually, not the phone itself) comes with a content filter enabled by default in the UK, adult or not.

Neither resident nor frequent visitor to the UK, so I'm behind the times when I ask: I beg your fucking pardon?

Is there further reading on this inane nanny-state horror, ideally via a Wikipedia article on the law or gentleman's agreement amongst the carriers?

Furthermore, is this more common than I assume, and I simply don't notice because I don't stray too far from the mainstream?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#67

Post by jojobas »

tasuki wrote: post #35

> The Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this expressly includes conducting investigations into, and imposing penalties for, non-compliance by providers of online services with their duties under the Act. […] The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect I don't see anything wrong here: Sure, Ofcom can have th…

The concern is they decide a site non-compliant, can't do shit about it in absence of British presence, then go after Britons accessing the site.

Kiwifarms stopped serving UK IPs, not because of fear of enforcement but rather because they don't anyone British jailed. The UK landing page straight up says 'use Tor'.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#68

Post by IlikeKitties »

4ggr0 wrote: post #65
IlikeKitties wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4chan isn't all /b/ and /pol/. /g/ the technology board can be a very interesting place. And its Members often create technology that absolutely suprises me. Just recently we started an effort to retake the usenet and are actively repopulating alt.cyberpunk.tech with genuine good discussions.

> 4chan isn't all /b/ and /pol/ maybe this is my bias, could very well be. maybe i should give it a 10th chance and browse the more useful boards. i guess /g/ would be a start, do you have other recommendations? i mean i'm open to change my mind. for me 4chan stands for alt-right pipelines, spreading far-right ideology online etc., so i just really have a sour taste in my mouth when thinking about it.

[dead]

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#69

Post by alias_neo »

xethos wrote: post #66
alias_neo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, but you'd need to apply it to all phones, because what's stopping a kid from buying an adult smartphone There's no need, that's already the case. All phones (the network account attached to the SIM actually, not the phone itself) comes with a content filter enabled by default in the UK, adult or not.

> All phones (the network account attached to the SIM actually, not the phone itself) comes with a content filter enabled by default in the UK, adult or not. Neither resident nor frequent visitor to the UK, so I'm behind the times when I ask: I beg your fucking pardon? Is there further reading on this inane nanny-state horror, ideally via a Wikipedia article on the law or gentleman's agreement amongst the carriers? F…

> I beg your fucking pardon?

Yep, my thoughts exactly when I first encountered it.

> Is there further reading on this inane nanny-state horror

I tried to look something up but it seems the articles and news about the (new) Online Safety Act has taken over all of the search results (and it's not something I want to search too hard at work). I even asked an LLM but it couldn't provide sources and simply said it was "voluntary" and "industry standard". The rest of its output was drowned in the new Online Safety Act.

I suppose thanks to the OSA the old system is now history.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#70

Post by anal_reactor »

Woodi wrote: post #26
vkazanov wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same problem. Tried to balance some kind of freedom with limitations but it just didn't work. Then I found discord, read through some chats... Now it's just outright forbidden to have anything with a chat. And no Internet. The problem is that other 10 year old have mobiles, free PC access, etc, so there constant peer pressure.

Some peoples are funny :) And there are parents ;) Kids go to school, have lessons, right ? And few minutes breaks between lessons ? How that parents want to censorship what kids talk about ? Not to mention phones use. And why exactly ? Thing is as it always is: parents make fundamens in culture/world view eg via their views and religion they subscribe. And then society and reality takes over. What society you have ?

Not exactly. Before smartphones, sure, you weren't able to police the kid 24/7. The kid gets out of the house, comes back in the evening, god knows what happened in the meantime. But nowadays parents actually do have the means to exercise absolute control over their kids. That's a huge game-changer. First, most of interaction happens online. If you ban the kid from the internet, your kid won't have friends, problem solved. And it's not like kids nowadays rush to gather outside.
Post reply on HN