Earlier quoted context omitted.
>There was a guy in Greece who had found out that as long as he never graduated, he could live a basic life for free at university. I remember him. Sadly he got evicted in the end. F.
Unless it was someone else larping as him, as recent as feb this year he posted that he's still living there (apparently got an extension or something). He was arrested, but he got released within a few days.
4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
711–720 of 936 posts
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#712Ofcom is currently threatening a Canadian forum that exists to help people with depression. Ofcom claims that geoblocking blocking the UK is "insufficient": > I've also gone back to Ofcom explicitly telling them the UK was now geoblocked (twice now) and I received a response that this was insufficient. Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1rk690v/i_ru... Ofcom really thinks that their laws apply gl…
These are the "duties" Ofcom is demanding of site owners and operators: - to conduct a suitable and sufficient illegal content risk assessment; - to use proportionate measures to prevent individuals encountering priority illegal content; - to use proportionate systems and processes to minimise the length of time priority illegal content is present; - to swiftly take down illegal content when it becomes aware of it; -…
[dead]
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#713Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guess how one gets "a suitable and sufficient illegal content risk assessment"? You need to buy it from compliance companies which lobbied for the law in the UK, run by ex regulators. https://x.com/moo9000/status/1950866445186818209?s=20
It means you have to do your paperwork so you can’t then pretend you “didn’t know” csam can exist on your website when repeatedly pointed out. As far as regulation goes this is pretty light and allowing. It’s more annoying than not having any laws at all sure, but zero regulation regime failed (from the point of view of powers that be). Next on the escalation ladder is govt writing the rules for you that you either t…
This won't solve anything and "being annoying" to everyone on the planet isn't a trivial overstep. I don't see any sense in your statement that "no regulation" failed.
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#714Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s as if British people belong to their government. Legally speaking, British people are subjects, not citizens.
This myth keeps getting repeated. It hasn't been true since 1949, when British subjects in the UK became Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. In 1983, the status of CUKC was renamed to British citizen (for those CUKCs resident in or closely connected with the UK: the situation in the remaining colonies was more complicated). At the same time, the status of British subject was officially restricted to those fe…
Ironic, because I feel like they’re the same, it’s semantic feely words that are different.
Right to vote was already established before the change of the name (subject->citizen).
So, what changed? Well subjects have “privileges” that are afforded from the monarch, and citizens have “rights” which are given from the state.
Except:
1) In olde english law, the monarch and the state are literally the same thing.
2) Rights seem to be pretty loosely followed if they’re actually, you know, RIGHTS, and not privileges afforded from the state.
I’d say that semantically the difference is how the words make you feel, not the actual applicability of the terms to anything that has been realised.
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#715Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's a great argument considering that the law in question is the Online Safety Act 2023.
There are a lot of things you can worry about in life. I'm not sure not visiting countries due to things zero people have had a problem with is productive. I'd be more worried visiting the US with the ICE stuff, although I accept that's rare but there's real cases like https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/21/karen-newton...
Pointing at someone even worse underlines how the behavior in question, here a law, is a complete failure.
Well I guess sudden cardiac arrest is even worse than silly internet rules.
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#716Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are the "duties" Ofcom is demanding of site owners and operators: - to conduct a suitable and sufficient illegal content risk assessment; - to use proportionate measures to prevent individuals encountering priority illegal content; - to use proportionate systems and processes to minimise the length of time priority illegal content is present; - to swiftly take down illegal content when it becomes aware of it; -…
Guess how one gets "a suitable and sufficient illegal content risk assessment"? You need to buy it from compliance companies which lobbied for the law in the UK, run by ex regulators. https://x.com/moo9000/status/1950866445186818209?s=20
It's all just a money making scheme
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#717Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't see it that way. It seems like NGOs and IGOs have been pushing for internet restrictions for a long time. There has suddenly been a push for age restrictions allegedly because of abuse material. This happens annually. Some international group claims there needs to be something draconian abolishing encryption, or some other privacy invading measure to stop child abuse and help security. The laws are 1000s of…
India is considering these bans. I suspect every country in the world is thinking of them. I work in safety, and you are right in that this comes up every year. The pressures have been building up and it’s coming to a head. However: 0) Techlash is a thing, and HN regularly underestimates the vehemence and anger behind it. 1) There IS an organic component, driven by voters globally. 2) It is also meta and governments,…
[dead]
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#718Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't need to change a regime. Just cut off a major ally of China and Russia.
They're not though. They're lofting sanctions on Russia just to help try to survive this war.
It's not the first time I see comments similar to this and I honestly can't even begin to grasp how anyone can think that the US is in any way shape or form at risk from Iran.
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#719how come noone has bothered to tell ofcom that 4chan has been clearly a honeypot for nearly a quarter of a century
Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches
#720Earlier quoted context omitted.
Guess how one gets "a suitable and sufficient illegal content risk assessment"? You need to buy it from compliance companies which lobbied for the law in the UK, run by ex regulators. https://x.com/moo9000/status/1950866445186818209?s=20
It means you have to do your paperwork so you can’t then pretend you “didn’t know” csam can exist on your website when repeatedly pointed out. As far as regulation goes this is pretty light and allowing. It’s more annoying than not having any laws at all sure, but zero regulation regime failed (from the point of view of powers that be). Next on the escalation ladder is govt writing the rules for you that you either t…
4chan is and has for a long time been in cooperation with US law enforcement. You can literally, right now, enter the site and when reporting a post there's an option to report a post as breaking US law.
If the UK is not happy about how the site deals with such matters, the UK can block the site.
>Next on the escalation ladder is govt writing the rules for you that you either take or leave
No. This is not "next". This is "now" but the UK doesn't want to actually look to be doing what they are actively doing, and now we've got this mess.