Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

express.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 735 posts

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#651

Post by giancarlostoro »

tokai wrote: post #519
OtherShrezzing wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia gets a lot of donations from the uk. I’m not sure how many Brits would continue putting £10-100/mo into a charity that explicitly doesn't operate in their borders.

Wouldn't make a dent in their budget. They are not poor by any means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti...

The annual cost is about 150 million, and they have a war chest of half a billion? If I remember correctly. Yeah, I don't think anything will do a dent, unless like everyone decides to never donate again.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#652

Post by rusk »

DroneBetter wrote: post #637
rusk wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> probably Island ?

i think they meant Ireland, which is a member of the EU and has a populace that strongly desires to continue to be, according to https://gov.ie/en/department-of-foreign-affairs/press-releas...

> that strongly desires to continue to be

Can confirm

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#653

Post by whywhywhywhy »

Vespasian wrote: post #148
pixl97 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends. If you're the US you call planes of out the sky that have representatives and owners of the companies on them. I'm assuming any leadership of Imgur would want to avoid going to the UK for the rest of eternity.

Or they simply decide to pay the fine for the short duration they were not in compliance. I would do that (after appealing) and be done with it.

Ultimately if enough businesses decide it isn't worth the bother than the restrictions will disappear.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#654

Post by fknorangesite »

ndriscoll wrote: post #648
Aurornis wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m equally baffled by all of these calls for extensive regulation and enforcement of Internet rules on HN. Someone in the comment section is unironically calling for imprisoning parents who let their kids use the internet. There are suggestions throughout the comment section calling for ID checks on websites. Is nobody thinking about what this actually means? Do you really want the entire internet to require ID vali…

Requiring businesses that provide products or services that we've already decided should be age gated to check ID is not the same as requiring all sites to check ID. Stores that sell porn or drugs or guns in person need to check ID. That hasn't resulted in all stores checking ID, or even stores that sometimes check ID (e.g. grocers selling alcohol) checking it all of the time. They only do for restricted items. No re…

Okay: Now define "adult content."

Sure, fine - we can agree on the hardcore porn. Maybe we can even agree on exposed female nipples?

What about sex education material? What about any content that includes an LGBT person? Because if you think I'm being hyperbolic, read page five of Project 2025.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#655

Post by oldjim798 »

squigz wrote: post #629
oldjim798 wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was the time facebook enabled a genocide in Myanmar, there is the Uber and AirBnb operating criminally without consequence having significant negative economic impacts to countless cities, there is all the research that shows the deep emotional damage done to teens on social media. It enabled crypto, which is a criminal exercise to defraud people. It also massively enabled echo chambers and conspiracy theories,…

Thanks. And out of curiosity, could you name some positive things the Internet has enabled? I'm also curious how you think we could have rolled it out better to have avoided those things.

-->could you name some positive things the Internet has enabled

This interaction? Honestly much much harder to list the positives.

I think much more regulation much much earlier. Cypto-currency should have been shut down immediately never allowed to grow. Same with Uber and AirBnB. Social media companies should have been banned from during algorithmic feeds and been required to moderate content much better.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#656

Post by ndriscoll »

fknorangesite wrote: post #654
ndriscoll wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Requiring businesses that provide products or services that we've already decided should be age gated to check ID is not the same as requiring all sites to check ID. Stores that sell porn or drugs or guns in person need to check ID. That hasn't resulted in all stores checking ID, or even stores that sometimes check ID (e.g. grocers selling alcohol) checking it all of the time. They only do for restricted items. No re…

Okay: Now define "adult content." Sure, fine - we can agree on the hardcore porn. Maybe we can even agree on exposed female nipples? What about sex education material? What about any content that includes an LGBT person? Because if you think I'm being hyperbolic, read page five of Project 2025.

That's not in any way unique to online ID checks. If a jurisdiction decides sex education material falls under "adult", then it does, and you have to handle that if you want to serve that jurisdiction. If it doesn't then it doesn't. Same as someone who wants to run a physical bookstore and wants to carry such things. I'm not seeing the complexity. If you don't like the line a jurisdiction draws, the thing to do is complain about that, not say that online businesses can just ignore laws that everyone else has to follow (and sites like imgur are well-resourced businesses with 10s of millions of dollars backing them. They can absolutely be expected to follow laws).

It's also easy for almost everyone to avoid worrying about the lines by just... not trying to exist right along them. If your photography discussion site just has a "no nudity" rule (or blanket puts nudity into its own adult-only section), then you don't have to worry about whether your photo is tasteful art or porn. These are normal rules anyway because sometimes people want to look at their hobby sites in public or at work and just see bird photos or whatever and not have passersby think they're a gooner, or see a surprise decapitation, etc. Even 4chan moderates their hobby boards and separates which ones allow adult material.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#657

Post by HDThoreaun »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #651
tokai wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't make a dent in their budget. They are not poor by any means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti...

The annual cost is about 150 million, and they have a war chest of half a billion? If I remember correctly. Yeah, I don't think anything will do a dent, unless like everyone decides to never donate again.

Wikimedia's expenses and wikipedia expenses are not the same. wikipedia does not spend anywhere near $150 million a year.

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#658

Post by HDThoreaun »

darkamaul wrote: post #452

Serious question: why are people siding with Imgur here, instead of blaming the company that chose to ignore the laws of the country it operates in? Imgur's business model is ad sales and tracking users - that inherently requires collecting and protecting data, including vulnerable groups like children. Even if the UK rules are imperfect or possibly overbroad (I haven't read them), if a company choose to operate wher…

> why are people siding with Imgur here, instead of blaming the company that chose to ignore the laws of the country it operates in?

Because the law is dumb and it is our moral imperative to not just ignore but break dumb laws

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#659

Post by [deleted] »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #152
nickslaughter02 wrote: post #4

> Mr Capel said: “We have been clear that exiting the UK does not allow an organisation to avoid responsibility for any prior infringement of data protection law, and our investigation remains ongoing. Block UK access now just in case.

It is exactly the same with the EU's GDPR, by the way... That's the funny or hypocritical thing: Both laws have the same reach but people here tend to praise the GDPR for it while being furious about the Online Safety Act.

[deleted]

Re: Imgur pulls out of UK as data watchdog threatens fine

#660

Post by buran77 »

matt-p wrote: post #218
buran77 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The following paragraph might shed some light on what that means (emphasis mine): > We have been clear that exiting the UK does not allow an organisation to avoid responsibility for any prior infringement of data protection law In that context it's completely fair to say "leaving doesn't absolve you of past transgressions". Edit. If Imgur made any revenue from UK users then it becomes impossible to claim plausible de…

Definition of 'Revenue in the UK' is a bit debatable though isn't it? I sell a advertising package from my US HQ based self serve advertising portal to a British company who use the service to advertise to customers in the UK. Ok - kinda UK revenue. How about 'To advertise to customers in the US' well it's getting highly debatable. What about I sell advertising packages to a US company from my US HQ but someone in th…

> Definition of 'Revenue in the UK' is a bit debatable though isn't it?

But I didn't say "in the UK", I said "from UK users". If Imgur monetized anything coming from a user in the UK then they can no longer pretend they weren't offering a service. They knowingly used that data to make money, it wasn't that someone accessed the site and that was the end of it.

It's the difference between going in and out of a restaurant, compared to sitting down, checking out the menu, and eating then refusing to pay because the prices are ridiculous. The latter removes any pretense of deniability. If they disagreed with a ridiculous law they should have put in a modicum of effort to block the service in the UK from the start. Instead they made money for as long as they could and now pretend to stand up for the little guy and fight abuse.

Post reply on HN