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

631–640 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#631

Post by rbanffy »

grafmax wrote: post #621
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…

> UK government’s overwrought free speech repression and its utilization of corporate bullying to that end.

If the citizens of the UK wish to express discontent, they are free to vote for a different parliament so they enact different laws. We who live outside the UK have no say on their laws.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#632

Post by rbanffy »

ghusto wrote: post #610
flumpcakes wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> In this example 4chan is 'importing' it's content to the UK No, UK ISPs are importing 4chan into the UK. At no point is 4chan involved in the importing of it's content. It could even be argued it's not involved in exporting it either.

> It could even be argued it's not involved in exporting it either.

It is providing content to IPs located in the UK, therefore, it's knowingly exporting content. If the user bypasses controls using VPNs or proxies, it's a different thing, but I would expect 4chan to make a reasonable effort on their side in order to prevent a sitewide block.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#633

Post by dommer »

koliber wrote: post #624
flumpcakes wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Perhaps the terms import and export aren’t suitable for internet content? Perhaps new terms with legal implications are needed for internet age?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#634

Post by rbanffy »

kjellsbells wrote: post #344
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.

Important correction: s/civil servants/lawmakers/g Civil servants didn't create, write, or pass the law. They simply got handed a flaming, bad smelling paper bag and got told to implement it.

> Civil servants didn't create, write, or pass the law. They simply got handed a flaming, bad smelling paper bag and got told to implement it.

The bag is handed by the legally elected government body in charge of making laws. I assume the UK citizens who elected their representatives agree with the policy.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#635

Post by grafmax »

rbanffy wrote: post #631
grafmax wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> UK government’s overwrought free speech repression and its utilization of corporate bullying to that end. If the citizens of the UK wish to express discontent, they are free to vote for a different parliament so they enact different laws. We who live outside the UK have no say on their laws.

The UK is much like the US in that democratic processes are co-opted and undermined by special interests to the point that governments engage in suppression of free speech and mass surveillance against their populations. (What’s unique to the UK is that it’s government is largely subservient to the US in the international dragnet.) We are all human and share the same human rights regardless of our nationality.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#636

Post by cyanydeez »

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…

Part of cigerettes adficrive physical is the action and cues.

I agree thwres no chemical component but addictiond are broadee than just external chemical iintroduction.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#637

Post by cyanydeez »

riazrizvi wrote: post #628
cyanydeez wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ameri…

Aure, i also have vbrain damage that aligna and cherry pivkd what i like

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#638

Post by adastra22 »

rbanffy wrote: post #629
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.

Fine. That’s not what’s going on here.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#639

Post by rbanffy »

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 doesn't go nearly as far as US legislation such as the trade embargoes against Cuba, Iran, or Venezuela. In that the US effectively harms any company that does business with a sanctioned country by sanctioning the company in the US. By the same logic, the UK could sanction any company that does business with 4chan and prevent it from doing any business in the UK.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#640

Post by rbanffy »

whimsicalism wrote: post #161

I think that because the UK speaks english, they’ve come to believe they somehow have similar levels of extraterritorial power as the US. Just a general symptom of way too many people consuming US media/political content.

The extraterritorial power of the US has no legal basis on the jurisdictions it's exerted.
Post reply on HN