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

Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users

ofcom.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users

#81

Post by jacquesm »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #66
frumplestlatz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serving ads to UK users does not grant the UK enforcement jurisdiction over 4chan. They have no presence, assets, or agents in the UK. If the UK still attempts to issue a judgement contrary to the first amendment, the constitution in general, and/or US law, it will not be recognized by US courts. In short, the UK can kick rocks.

Nobody in the world cares about US constitution or opinion of US courts. It is absolutely irrelevant. If American company does business somewhere and breaks local laws, that part of their business can be disrupted or shut down (by blocking traffic, restricting financial transactions to certain entities, blocking shipments), executives may be arrested on arrival, there may be secondary sanctions etc. This is absolutel…

> Nobody in the world cares about US constitution or opinion of US courts.

Reminder not to take any kind of legal advice from HN.

Re: Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users

#82

Post by ffsm8 »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #80
achierius wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not, and so the treaties to which the US is party for those cases would not apply. What sanction methods are you thinking of that could get to US citizens on US soil without US governmental consent?

1. Preventing those citizens from doing illegal activities on UK soil 2. Using broader spectrum of law enforcement options if those citizens arrive in the UK

Blows my mind someone actually unironically makes this argument.

4chan is showing ads on their site, but if your idea had any grounds, the issue would be with the ad network, not 4chan.

While that'd be a pretty bad legal precedent too, it'd at least be coherent.

More realistically, 4chan will likely be banned by UK ISPs after a court ruling.

The previous mail was likely just to move the process forward to show they have no interest in following the UK law.

Re: Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users

#83

Post by ivan_gammel »

jacquesm wrote: post #81
ivan_gammel wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody in the world cares about US constitution or opinion of US courts. It is absolutely irrelevant. If American company does business somewhere and breaks local laws, that part of their business can be disrupted or shut down (by blocking traffic, restricting financial transactions to certain entities, blocking shipments), executives may be arrested on arrival, there may be secondary sanctions etc. This is absolutel…

> Nobody in the world cares about US constitution or opinion of US courts. Reminder not to take any kind of legal advice from HN.

As if any government would ever take any advice from HN... :)

No, seriously, what's your point? That for a G7 government interfering with interests of American companies outside of US jurisdiction it is somehow a problem?

Re: Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users

#84

Post by ivan_gammel »

ffsm8 wrote: post #82
ivan_gammel wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Preventing those citizens from doing illegal activities on UK soil 2. Using broader spectrum of law enforcement options if those citizens arrive in the UK

Blows my mind someone actually unironically makes this argument. 4chan is showing ads on their site, but if your idea had any grounds, the issue would be with the ad network, not 4chan. While that'd be a pretty bad legal precedent too, it'd at least be coherent. More realistically, 4chan will likely be banned by UK ISPs after a court ruling. The previous mail was likely just to move the process forward to show they h…

>4chan is showing ads on their site, but if your idea had any grounds, the issue would be with the ad network, not 4chan.

It's hard to understand the logic of this statement. Why the ad network? 4chan business is to show ads to users while offering them a platform for conversations. What 3rd party service do they use is irrelevant unless that is by coincidence an UK company.

>More realistically, 4chan will likely be banned by UK ISPs after a court ruling.

This is exactly what my comment above means.

Re: Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users

#85

Post by klipklop »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #66
frumplestlatz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serving ads to UK users does not grant the UK enforcement jurisdiction over 4chan. They have no presence, assets, or agents in the UK. If the UK still attempts to issue a judgement contrary to the first amendment, the constitution in general, and/or US law, it will not be recognized by US courts. In short, the UK can kick rocks.

Nobody in the world cares about US constitution or opinion of US courts. It is absolutely irrelevant. If American company does business somewhere and breaks local laws, that part of their business can be disrupted or shut down (by blocking traffic, restricting financial transactions to certain entities, blocking shipments), executives may be arrested on arrival, there may be secondary sanctions etc. This is absolutel…

Yeah man nobody cares about freedom of speech. /s

You know that first amendment of the thing you say nobody cares about. A fundamental human right people are giving up in the UK so they can be “protected” from big bad ol 4chan. What a joke…

Re: Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users

#86

Post by ivan_gammel »

klipklop wrote: post #85
ivan_gammel wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody in the world cares about US constitution or opinion of US courts. It is absolutely irrelevant. If American company does business somewhere and breaks local laws, that part of their business can be disrupted or shut down (by blocking traffic, restricting financial transactions to certain entities, blocking shipments), executives may be arrested on arrival, there may be secondary sanctions etc. This is absolutel…

Yeah man nobody cares about freedom of speech. /s You know that first amendment of the thing you say nobody cares about. A fundamental human right people are giving up in the UK so they can be “protected” from big bad ol 4chan. What a joke…

Last time I checked USA is not the most democratic country in the world (#28 in democracy index below Uruguay, Czechia and Malta), so it is certainly not the role model for freedom. Yes, surprise, there exist other views in the world on how to find the balance between many different fundamental human rights and it does not mean those views reject freedom of speech. They just restrict it differently than America (which has several categories of unprotected speech and ranks lower in press freedom indices than some other countries which may restrict more categories).

Re: Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users

#87

Post by bentley »

justlikereddit wrote: post #79
bentley wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they think that UK law doesn't apply to them (which seems very credible) why react at all? If I get a speeding ticket in the mail from another state I've never been to, I'm not going to ignore it, I'm going to explain to the court why it's invalid. Ignoring legal notices, even from other jurisdictions than one's own, is generally unwise (with some exceptions). So is responding with insults instead of concrete le…

You get a speeding ticket from Pakistan and you'll really go to the court in Islamabad to explain your case?

Notice how I said “some exceptions,” precisely to head off a comment like that. Or did you read “some exceptions” and think your example wouldn’t qualify?

No, I don’t care what Pakistan thinks of me. But I've been to the UK, and I'll probably go there again. I live my life according to American law, without regard for UK law, but if UK law enforcement publicly announced an investigation of me, I'd find legal representation and respond. (Remotely.)

Re: Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users

#88

Post by fatata123 »

justlikereddit wrote: post #79
bentley wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they think that UK law doesn't apply to them (which seems very credible) why react at all? If I get a speeding ticket in the mail from another state I've never been to, I'm not going to ignore it, I'm going to explain to the court why it's invalid. Ignoring legal notices, even from other jurisdictions than one's own, is generally unwise (with some exceptions). So is responding with insults instead of concrete le…

You get a speeding ticket from Pakistan and you'll really go to the court in Islamabad to explain your case?

[dead]

Re: Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users

#89

Post by horseradish7k »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #78
8note wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the UK could block access to 4chan, or block the ability for 4chan to sell ads in the UK

4chan will laugh and UK users will VPN to access 4chan and nothing of value will have been provided by this laughingstock of regulation.

except 4chan disallows posting from vpns, which is probably why they didn't self censor already

Re: Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users

#90

Post by jacquesm »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #83
jacquesm wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody in the world cares about US constitution or opinion of US courts. Reminder not to take any kind of legal advice from HN.

As if any government would ever take any advice from HN... :) No, seriously, what's your point? That for a G7 government interfering with interests of American companies outside of US jurisdiction it is somehow a problem?

Yes, it is 'somehow a problem'. Just like the reverse is 'somehow a problem'. Effectively advising a large audience that they can ignore the law whereas there are plenty of examples of why you probably shouldn't be ignoring the law is a pretty silly thing to do.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/stlouis/press-releases/200...

Is one of my favorite examples to point to but there are countless others besides.

Post reply on HN