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

731–740 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#731

Post by rbanffy »

adastra22 wrote: post #712
rbanffy wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those companies were operating in Brazil. They had income booked in Brazil that could be impounded. They had employees there and offices and had to comply with local laws. 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 r…

At one point Elon Musk fired every employee in Brazil in order to prevent that. It didn’t work - the were blocked. After that, Elon caved and named a local legal representative. X has been, since then, very cooperative.

Afghanistan can block anything they want within their borders and hold anyone in contempt if they refuse to comply. Whether I support that or not is immaterial - I would have to comply in order to continue making other content or services available to Afghanistan residents. Being entirely blocked would be worse.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#732

Post by rbanffy »

amiga386 wrote: post #674
rbanffy wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government as it is, was elected by 100% of the vote. The party heading the Executive branch had fewer than 100% of the vote.

That is not the case. The government was elected with 33.7% of the vote. You were trying to make a distinction between "government" and "executive" -- that's not how it works here, matey. His Majesty's Government is the party in power (or whichever grouping of MPs can hold the confidence of parliament), it is not all the other MPs - they are the opposition . We don't have an "Executive". We have His Majesty's Governm…

> That is not the case. The government was elected with 33.7% of the vote.

My point is that all votes were counted. Some people disagree with the winning choice, but it’s still their legitimate government chosen in a free and democratic election.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#733

Post by Thorrez »

jandrese wrote: post #719
Thorrez wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have evidence that Google is filtering searches in China? Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on search.

https://blogoscoped.com/archive/2009-06-04-n13.html This is obviously pretty old, but as people have noted even this level of censorship didn't save Google in China.

In 2010 Google decided to stop censoring results in China.

>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...

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#734

Post by grafmax »

int_19h wrote: post #722
Ylpertnodi wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your 'impression'.

From the polls, yes.

There are polls for different aspects of OSA but not the OSA itself. For example protecting kids online is popular (big surprise). Yet no polls I can find that frame the OSA itself or the OSA with its trade offs. Seems like the standard practice of asking leading questions so that pollsters can frame popular opinion in some already-decided way.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#735

Post by FMecha »

833 wrote: post #260

Ofcom said this four days ago: > "Services who choose to restrict access rather than protect UK users remain on our watchlist" How does withdrawing service from UK users not "protect UK users"? How does age verifying UK IPs provide more protection than withdrawing the service entirely? It is about power and control, and nothing else.

"Comply with our laws, or cease to exist".

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#736

Post by mothballed »

Nevermark wrote: post #730
mothballed wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a recklessly misinformed understanding of HIPAA. It applies even if you've never signed a "HIPAA agreement."

My understanding: HIPAA prohibits share private medical information that isn't yours. Regardless of signing anything or how you got it. And no medical establishment can (legally) share records with you, without a legal purpose, and documentation you know your obligations or are legally allowed to have the information. Nobody cares what your opinion is, without an explanation. This is HN. Two-way curiosity and friendl…

Yes you understand now. Every time you understand, you move the goal posts. You've moved them twice now, this time simply declaring the speech you don't like "isn't yours." At first it was about offenses that cause harm, then it was essentially about contract law. And then when you found out there was no contract, then you just moved the goal posts to the patient owning the information inside the provider's brain.

There is no curiosity in your approach, you know in your heart of hearts you're simply backtracking and then shifting the posts everytime your claims are wrong.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#737

Post by amiga386 »

rbanffy wrote: post #732
amiga386 wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not the case. The government was elected with 33.7% of the vote. You were trying to make a distinction between "government" and "executive" -- that's not how it works here, matey. His Majesty's Government is the party in power (or whichever grouping of MPs can hold the confidence of parliament), it is not all the other MPs - they are the opposition . We don't have an "Executive". We have His Majesty's Governm…

> That is not the case. The government was elected with 33.7% of the vote. My point is that all votes were counted. Some people disagree with the winning choice, but it’s still their legitimate government chosen in a free and democratic election.

I notice you didn't use the word "fair" though. Probably because FPTP is not fair.

In FPTP, if your vote doesn't elect the winner in your constituency, it was wasted. Even if you voted for the eventual government party in a seat that the party didn't win. Your vote did not count. In other electoral systems, it does count.

FPTP means that one vote in one area (e.g. a "safe seat") is not equal to one vote somewhere else. Knowing the geographical distribution of preferences makes gerrymandering possible, and elections have been won not by fair voting, but by unfair redistricting.

FPTP massively punishes any "similar" parties with a vote-split, meaning parties have to become mega-alliances and ultimately they are ground down to just 2 parties. That's the only stable configuration. Any third party has to be mercilessly destroyed, otherwise it will start taking votes from the party it is most similar, leaving their opponent an easy victory.

That's what happened in the 2024 election: Reform UK no longer had the electoral pact they had with the Conservatives in 2019 (where Reform UK voluntarily withdrew from any seats the Conservatives were likely to win), and as a result, the vote-split between Reform UK and Conservatives let Labour romp home to victory.

* Labour got 63% of the seats with 33% of the vote.

* Conservatives got 18% of the seats with 23% of the vote

* Reform UK got 0.8% of the seats with 14% of the vote

* Lib Dems got 11% of the seats with 12% of the vote

That is manifestly unjust. Reform got 5 seats for 4,117,610 votes while Lib Dems got 72 seats for 3,519,143 votes. If that's democratic then I'm a banana.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#738

Post by array_key_first »

ceejayoz wrote: post #695
array_key_first wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Why are you doubting that? I can't even search for porn on cellular networks and I'm in the US. Hotels, Starbucks, my job, the library - they all block porn. The idea that kids just have free access to a wild internet is legitimately made up. Schools block that stuff too - universities, even. As I've said, this solution is not solving this problem because this problem legitimately does not exist. It's solving a…

My cellular network (Google Fi / T-Mobile), as far as I can tell, has zero content blocking. Hotels used to officially put porn on the TVs via pay per view . I'm very skeptical that they widely block it. I have high-school aged kids; they all trade techniques for getting precisely that "free access to a wild internet". It's a game of whack a mole, and school IT administrators are on the losing side.

Yes so lets go ahead and burn the entire internet so your kids, specifically, don't see boobies or something.

The reality is that it is YOUR responsibility to control what your kids see. If you fail, I do not care. They are not my kids. Not only do I not care, nobody cares.

You can absolutely lock your kids down and make sure they get no internet access. I know because I grew up without internet. Everything is very much in reach. Do that, or don't, again I don't care.

My mobile carrier blocks porn. I know because I'm an adult and sometimes I want to watch porn, and I have to use a VPN.

What you should do is call up whoever you are giving money to for internet and ask them about blocking. If they tell you they don't offer that product, then you, as a consumer, should cancel your subscription and go to another carrier.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#739

Post by array_key_first »

sib wrote: post #447
array_key_first wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not a joke at all. When you buy wifi, they already make sure you're an adult. They ask for proof of residence, you sign a contract. Children cannot buy wifi. Go ahead and try - no ISP is going to write a contract with a child. Wifi, like tobacco and alcohol, is already age restricted. The problem is the adults buying it then turn around and just... Hand it to children. That's not the fault of the law or socie…

What are you talking about when you say "when you buy Wi-Fi"? If you walk into a coffee shop, or a hotel, or just about anywhere, you get Wi-Fi for free. Are you talking about buying mobile service from an operator?

Buying internet access from an ISP or a mobile carrier?

Both require being an adult.

And, "free wifi", like you're talking about, already blocks porn. So problem solved, right?

What's actually the issue here? Because nobody seems to be able to articulate it. What problem are we solving?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#740

Post by Levitz »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #668
Levitz wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be under the false impression that 4chan makes money, as in, is profitable. It's very much not. Nor does advertising, much less UK advertising, constitute an important influx of money into the "business".

A rather strange conclusion from my words. I do not assume it’s profitable, but it’s pretty logical that a for-profit organization running a service that is based on user engagement will have its revenue from the sources linked to the audience, be it advertising, subscriptions or donations. If you cut a visible slice of that audience, it’s going to impact the revenue. It’s still not profitable, 10 years after acquisi…

What makes you think it's a "for-profit organization"? Or that it has investors?
Post reply on HN