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

621–630 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#621

Post by grafmax »

koliber wrote: post #574

> 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 pe…

Strange that this is framed as a national sovereignty issue not an issue of UK government’s overwrought free speech repression and its utilization of corporate bullying to that end. This is exactly the thing we don’t want democratic governments to do - congeal with corporate power against their people. Appealing to legality when the laws are themselves unjust is not a defense. The online safety act is broad and vague and not in the interests of UK citizens, so sovereignty appeals are completely disingenuous here. When we talk about sovereignty what we are really referring to is the power of the UK government over its people and the subservience expected of entities like 4chan to that end.

We see these exact same mechanisms in the US and that’s precisely why we should not manufacture rationalizations for this kind of policy - the societal decline as a result of this cynical trend is clear.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#622

Post by thaumasiotes »

mda wrote: post #572
thaumasiotes wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China

> On 26 January 2006, Google launched its China-based google.cn search page, with results subject to censorship by the Chinese government.

> In January 2010, Google announced that, in response to a Chinese-originated hacking attack on them and other US tech companies, they were no longer willing to censor searches in China and would pull out of the country completely if necessary.

They never had a problem censoring their results. They claimed to pull out "in retaliation" for being hacked; realistically, they noticed that China didn't want them to succeed, and gave up on trying.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#623

Post by koliber »

potato3732842 wrote: post #609
koliber wrote: post #574

> 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 pe…

They're not being lazy. The political reality is that the people of the UK are mostly sick of this shit so harassing the sources (4chan and others) is gonna cause less pushback for the same results than fining people.

We agree in essence. I just called the avoidance of dealing with the pushback laziness.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#624

Post by koliber »

flumpcakes wrote: post #605
koliber wrote: post #574

> 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 pe…

> and set up import controls to prevent people from importing guns bought abroad. In this example 4chan is 'importing' it's content to the UK. I agree though, Ofcom should just go straight to banning these websites that won't comply, rather than this silly and pointless song and dance. Ultimately that's the only real enforcement tool they have. For certain websites that will be enough (Facebook, etc.) for them to fol…

4chan is exporting. The consumer is importing. That distinction matters.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#625

Post by koliber »

janc_ wrote: post #619
DrewADesign wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I order something from AliExpress shipped from China, I’m importing it, and the vendor exporting it. They’re not importing it to me, and I’m not exporting it to myself. Same thing if I make a web request for content on a server overseas.

Alibaba has warehouses & hubs in Europe (and I assume the US), where it first imports to its own subsidiary here, so this is somewhat debateable.

With Alibaba it gets complicated. There are things like duty free warehouses where things can be on US soil but legally have not yet been imported. But that does not apply in the UK. 4chan does not have servers or proxies in the UK. If it did, Ofcam can go after those local entities and I would not bat an eye.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#626

Post by Aurornis »

mikkupikku wrote: post #377
jay_kyburz wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its unreasonable for a government to ask company to abide by its laws if it want to do business with its citizens. Where I think they are going wrong is that they are trying to levy fines rather than just blocking the business. Oh, and the whole age verification thing is bonkers. I'm a parent of 2 teenagers, I don't think its asking too much for a parent to be responsible for what children see and do on…

If you honestly believe you can control what your two teens see and do on the internet, you've either got them chained up in a closet, or you're wrong.

With parenting it’s not a case where you have 100% airtight control over everything with no possible leaks. It’s a spectrum where you impose expectations combined with some controls.

The parents I’ve seen who give up and make no efforts because they think it’s impossible to perfect control everything don’t have great outcomes. This applies to everything from internet to drinking alcohol and more.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#627

Post by ricudis »

jolmg wrote: post #389
pclmulqdq wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America won't go after you. America will go after Americans who access your site and American ISPs will block your site. That's not America regulating your behavior. You're still free to do whatever you want. If you enter America, there may also be consequences, but you don't need to enter America.

> If you enter America, there may also be consequences That isn't much different. Say an adult American drinks alcohol in America; then they travel to a country where alcohol is illegal. Should they be prosecuted in that country for having drank in America?

Singapore does exactly that, and they explicitly warn outbound Singaporean travelers that any drug use outside Singapore will be prosecuted as if it has happened in Singapore.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#628

Post by riazrizvi »

cyanydeez wrote: post #336
riazrizvi wrote: post #175

More odious nannying by silly civil servants. If Britain is to restore cultural leadership it needs to move policy away from this horrible trend of policing what people say and think, and focus its energy on better policing what people do.

Unfortunately, Britain, like America, is seized by the worst of both worlds because conservatives and business interests have captured the electorate and narrowly agree on authoritarian nonsense.

I’ve come to align with Trump’s right wing politics, based on their direct announcements on Youtube and policy decisions. What they are doing makes economic and strategic sense. I have also come to see the general hostility as emanating from people who are fed deranged distortions on the Trump admin’s decisions, likely fostered by narrow business interests and foreign entities who don’t care about the plight of America. This is after 23 years of Democrat support, since I moved to this country.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#629

Post by rbanffy »

koliber wrote: post #574

> 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 pe…

> They cannot prevent foreign companies from providing such content.

Said companies often find it less burdensome to comply than the option of being outright blocked from the market. Brazil did that a couple times with a couple different companies. If a company wants to provide services to a given jurisdiction, it needs to comply with local regulations.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#630

Post by DrewADesign »

janc_ wrote: post #619
DrewADesign wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I order something from AliExpress shipped from China, I’m importing it, and the vendor exporting it. They’re not importing it to me, and I’m not exporting it to myself. Same thing if I make a web request for content on a server overseas.

Alibaba has warehouses & hubs in Europe (and I assume the US), where it first imports to its own subsidiary here, so this is somewhat debateable.

Ok- a transcontinental pizza order from a slice shop in Beijing, then. AliExpress’s logistics are obviously not relevant to the metaphor.
Post reply on HN