711–720 of 817 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's entirely up to 4chan whether it decides to comply or not.
Their executives might be in trouble if they ever visit the UK though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it’s not. Ofcom has no jurisdiction to make a US company do anything. The Internet is a global marketplace. If the UK wants to remove itself from this marketplace, like it did from the EU, it will need to do the blocking itself. But Ofcom knows what the government blocking access to information looks like and they don’t have the balls to do it.
It was done before. Brazil did that to WhatsApp and Twitter and both companies voluntarily complied with the court requests. Rumble remains blocked because it decided it wouldn't comply with the Brazilian court orders.
4chan isn’t in the UK. 4chan doesn’t have UK employees or offices. 4chan doesn’t book income on the UK. 4chan didn’t have any thing to do with the UK at all.
If this isn’t convincing, consider this: legally what is the difference from Afghanistan requesting anything not legally in compliance with Taliban’s laws be restricted? Would you support that? Legally that is what is going on here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If diverting planes becomes a big enough problem for ordinary businesspeople and not just prominent opponents of certain dictators, I'm sure someone will build an app that helps us plan flights accordingly. Traveling from the US to France and need to avoid UK airspace? Sure, let's take a quick layover in Spain. Have you done any of the following things in the last x years? OK, we'll make a big detour around China t…
> And the second is that you're not the one flying the plane. You thought you were going to Charles de Gaulle but the weather in Paris is worse than expected or some drunk driver crashed the gate and drove out onto the runway and they're diverting all the planes, so after you're already in the air you find out you're actually going to Heathrow. Such a system would presumably account for possible diversions and plot y…
I mean, that's fine if you want to avoid Russia while flying from California to Quebec, but you don't really need an app for that one. Whereas if you're within the plane's fuel supply of where you don't want to be, how are you supposed to know ahead of time what kind of nonsense is going to happen while you're in the air?
The plane could have a navigation failure over the ocean and end up arbitrarily far off course. Some first class VIP could have a medical problem which is going to force the plane to divert anyway and then the nearest city with the right kind of hospital is in the place you don't want to be. And what if you end up St. Petersberg not because you had a layover in Finland but because Helsinki was your intended destination?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 nece…
First, in 2006, there was still a general belief I think that Western companies could profitably exist in China and be, if not a "force for good", than at least a force for slightly more openness. Google's options were either to not be in China at all, or to be in China and abide by their laws. So when they censored search results in the 2006-2010 time period, at least they told you they were doing it and that it was at the demands of Chinese authorities. I think it's a fair debate to have on either side whether this was a good thing, but I think it's a gross oversimplification to present that this was a simple black-and-white decision and that Google "never had a problem censoring their results."
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…
My impression is that most UK citizens do in fact support their nanny state and its policies, so this is rather an example of democracy in action.
From the attorney's post: > The infinite character of that power was most famously summed up by English lawyer Sir Ivor Jennings, who once said that “if Parliament enacts that smoking in the streets of Paris is an offence, then it is an offence”. This line is taught to every first-year English law student. Initially this seems like disrespect for another country's sovereignty. But really the crucial thing is: > We ex…
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…
did you mean to say "companies operating in the UK and(including) companies providing services to the UK"? because the way you wrote it, it would not apply to 4chan
and what is not being mentioned by most commenters is, if the law is unenforceable on a US corp, what is the chance that an individual associated with 4chan Inc could find themselves individually arrested were they to set foot in a Commonwealth country or somesuch
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.
Completely whitewashed, for all the good it does Google.
Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on search.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what is Google doing? That was the question. Google isn't available in China.
> Phrases will be banned/filtered from all digital services in China relating to it. Google was complying with, what I assume is the law in, China and censoring searches for things China doesn't want talked about. Google has since left China, apparently bowing down wasn't enough.
>We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn
https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-chin...
Disclosure: I work at Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely whitewashed, for all the good it does Google.
Do you have evidence that Google is filtering searches in China? Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on search.
This is obviously pretty old, but as people have noted even this level of censorship didn't save Google in China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If diverting planes becomes a big enough problem for ordinary businesspeople and not just prominent opponents of certain dictators, I'm sure someone will build an app that helps us plan flights accordingly. Traveling from the US to France and need to avoid UK airspace? Sure, let's take a quick layover in Spain. Have you done any of the following things in the last x years? OK, we'll make a big detour around China thi…
> If diverting planes becomes a big enough problem for ordinary businesspeople and not just prominent opponents of certain dictators, I'm sure someone will build an app that helps us plan flights accordingly. Traveling from the US to France and need to avoid UK airspace? Sure, let's take a quick layover in Spain. Have you done any of the following things in the last x years? OK, we'll make a big detour around China t…
Who?
I can't think of a single case other than Ryanair 4978, a plane that was carrying a Belarusian opposition activist over Belarusian airspace. Not saying this was justified in any way, but even Belarus didn't dare to touch any foreign passengers.
If you're aware of any actual case of a first-world airliner from country A being forced to land in country B to have a citizen of country C arrested, please provide links.