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

4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 936 posts

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#751

Post by philipallstar »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #156
nvme0n1p1 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace "4chan" with "humanity in general" and your statement still holds true.

I mean that's pretty vacuously true, since (the community of) "4chan" is a subset of (the total population of) "humanity in general," but it's a stronger and more interesting claim to make about the subculture in question. If anything, the person you were replying to was intentionally describing how 4chan is less dissimilar to humanity in general than its typical portrayal, so responding with a dismissal that that ma…

"4chan has done these" and "humanity has done these" are equally vacuous.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#752

Post by philipallstar »

369548684892826 wrote: post #391
richwater wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK can block whatever they want if they'd like to become an authoritarian firewall state. But they have no legal basis to fine 4chan.

Surely they do have the legal basis, that's how the fine got issued. What they're missing is any way to enforce it.

What legal basis?

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#753

Post by graemep »

zelos wrote: post #674
stackghost wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Britain still has colonies with millions of people in them. Britain does not have colonies. You might be thinking of the British overseas territory but the total population of those islands is less than 400,000

Not to open a can of worms, but there are probably people who still consider Northern Ireland a colony.

They can consider what they like, but it is factually wrong. People in NI get to vote in UK elections.

A reasonable case can be made that it should be Irish territory, not British, but that is a territorial dispute.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#754

Post by yostrovs »

hdgvhicv wrote: post #600
nehal3m wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might makes right I guess.

US is losing a war on washing, hardly fear inducing https://www.irishtimes.com/world/middle-east/2026/03/18/bloc...

Ireland doesn't have a military.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#755

Post by bcjdjsndon »

troad wrote: post #436
epolanski wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Who's profiting from us customers? Uhhh... the person whose company has 30% of its customers in the US. See above. > You sound like the lunatic president you have > You're the usual case thinking US is an exception to the rules, where it can dictate it's terms beyond its borders and get away with the opposite. Cool. I'm not American. I'm literally just quoting International Private Law (aka Conflict of Laws) to you…

So you think 4chan should be paying the EU fine then?

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#756

Post by __s »

bmacho wrote: post #709
Neil44 wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just how the law works apparently, if there's a UK law passed that makes smoking illegal in Paris then smoking is illegal in Paris. The practicalities of this are to be worked out later.

Smoking in Paris is harmful to the health of UK citizens residing in Paris. I'm not sure why UK hasn't banned that yet. When OSA was announced I really expected the US to state clearly that they wouldn't let UK to threaten US citizens with millions of fines if they practice their rights to Free Speech. Because this is what's happening, the UK is making open threats against US citizens when they practice their rights…

geoblocking should be on ofcom. they should be able to order UK ISPs to block non-compliant sites. everyone gets their own great firewall

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#757

Post by egorfine »

troad wrote: post #396
epolanski wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What were these 'several countries'? Iran? Cuba? North Korea? It doesn't matter which those were, we were obliged to respect laws of the European country we were incorporated, not US ones.

You're serving US customers. You are doing business in the US, and therefore you are subject to US law. What about when a customer requests a refund, do you just pretend US consumer protection laws don't apply to that customer? Or to turn your logic around, can American corporations do business in Europe while just completely ignoring the GDPR and all other European laws? Laws are not a buffet. You choose to do busin…

> You're serving US customers. You are doing business in the US, and therefore you are subject to US law

I don't think this is how the law works.

Think of it this way: any customer from Libya makes it customary for my female co-workers to wear hijab at the workplace.

Thus a customer who voluntarily purchases services from a company in a different jurisdiction does NOT automatically makes this company subject to his jurisdiction.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#758

Post by egorfine »

troad wrote: post #375
epolanski wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have worked for a company that was threatened by the US to not offer services to several countries or face criminal charges in the US. I'm talking about a saas nothing strange. We were too small and bent, also US customers were 30% of the total which made it a non choice.

> not offer services to several countries The kind of vague phrasing that makes one immediately suspicious. What were these 'several countries'? Iran? Cuba? North Korea? > also US customers were 30% of the total which made it a non choice You're literally operating in the US then. It's obvious US laws would apply if you're serving US customers.

> It's obvious US laws would apply if you're serving US customers

So any customer from Libya makes it customary for my female co-workers to wear hijab at the workplace, right? Same logic.

No.

A customer who voluntarily purchases services from a company in a different jurisdiction does NOT automatically makes this company subject to his specific jurisdiction.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#759

Post by galangalalgol »

Levitz wrote: post #718
guerrilla wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

If it spends enough to trigger the debt bomb literally pounding sand, that could do it. It isn't Iran that is the danger though. The US could just walk away any time and be fine.

Re: 4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches

#760

Post by egorfine »

petcat wrote: post #291
ascorbic wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US arrested and imprisoned the bosses of multiple UK-based gambling sites that were not only legal in the UK – they were listed on the London Stock Exchange.

"You’re taking bets from U.S. customers → you’re violating U.S. law" This is different than 4chan allowing UK viewers to access the website at all.

> You’re showing pictures to UK customers → you’re violating UK law
Post reply on HN