641–650 of 817 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can, but they have to ask a court to enforce any sort of block. I imagine that's coming soon.
Now that you mention it, that's probably why they sent this letter. They know it's pointless but they want a paper trail to show they tried to find other solutions before requesting a block.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
A judge will not find this comment amusing, or a justification for breaking the law. You can, of course, engage in civil disobedience, but keep in mind it doesn't shield you from consequences.
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…
> They are stating that companies operating in the UK They are not operating in the UK. ISPs in the UK have chosen to make content from the USA available in the uk (or more accurately, do nothing to prevent it being available)
Thus Ofcom goes through the motions of telling 4Chan "hey I think you're not compliant" and if 4Chan says "lol, I'm not serving UK people" _then_ the UK authority will tell the ISPs to block it (and the will be on the hook if they don't).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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.
You must not remember the Kim Dotcom raid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google does certain things in relation to Tiananmen Square searches in China What does Google do with Tiananmen square searches in China? I can't access google here at all.
It is a mass killing event which the Chinese government pretends never happened and/or suppresses the information of. Phrases will be banned/filtered from all digital services in China relating to it. From Wikipedia: > The Tiananmen Square protests, known within China as the June Fourth Incident, were student-led demonstrations held in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China, lasting from 15 April to 4 June 1989. After we…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
4chan, the owner/company, does not operate out of the UK. It’s a US company. They are only bound to US laws. Just because UK internet users are able to establish a network connection to 4chan’s server via ISP peering agreements does not mean 4chan are subject to UK law.
As long as 4chan sells 4chan passes to UK citizens, they do business in the UK. They sell using crypto so there's not much for the UK to go after, but they do more than just "be available".
Second, again, 4chan does not operate in the UK. If someone in the UK purchases a 4chan pass, they have electronically transmitted their "money" over to the US to buy it. I would compare this to a UK citizen flying over to the US and buying a ticket, and bringing it back with them to the UK.
It's very clear, 4chan did not perform any business or transactions within UK jurisdiction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I certainly wouldn't. Let the UK block if they want to. At least the voters there will know who to be angry at.
Those people are already angry at so many things it would be hard to measure the change.
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…
>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.