4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence • Hacker News Board

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#811

Post by rbanffy » Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 8:42 AM UTC

account42 wrote: post #790

rbanffy wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The extraterritorial power of the US has no legal basis on the jurisdictions it's exerted.

What legal basis do you think it could possibly have? There is no world government telling countries what they can and cannot do to each other.

There are treaties and international conventions, as well as the ICC and other supranational bodies that prosecute abuses by nation states and individuals responsible for the actions.

But, largely, that was my point - it's entirely illegal, and a "might makes right" situation.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#812

Post by skeezyjefferson » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 1:51 PM UTC

cdfsdsadsa wrote: post #761

skeezyjefferson wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It indicates at best a slightly positive outcome on average Follow the science bud. The science is telling you to give them screentime >I'm talking about school reports, among other things. well yeah, you are now. > It's something I struggle with daily, this actually explains a lot

>Follow the science bud. The science is telling you to give them screentime If I see some science that says this, I'll think about it.

you just did but ignored it

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#813

Post by alt227 » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 4:20 PM UTC

EarlKing wrote: post #362

alt227 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> education being about producing pliant workers over independent, thinking human beings. You cant have things like computers and smart phones if you dont have millions of pliant workers mass producing them for you. If you want the technological world that we live in to be possible then you should accept that it requires this concept. If everybody is a creative independant free thinking individual, then nobody is a w…

Generations of wave solder machines and pick-and-place machines beg to differ...

Id love to see a wave solder machine mine some cobalt...

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#814

Post by pstuart » Sun, Oct 26, 2025, 6:32 PM UTC

lavezzi wrote: post #456

pstuart wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moderation of this site is top notch and a key component of its quality, and I say that as someone admonished by dang more than once.

yes, them constantly locking threads about content they don’t agree with is stellar

Do you think that there should be zero moderation of this site?

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#815

Post by sib » Tue, Oct 28, 2025, 11:59 AM UTC

array_key_first wrote: post #739

sib wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>> Buying internet access from an ISP or a mobile carrier?

But neither of those is "buying Wi-Fi" - that's why I'm confused.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#816

Post by ghusto » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 8:10 AM UTC

riffraff wrote: post #644

ghusto wrote: post #613

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are stating that companies operating in the UK They are not operating in the UK. ISPs in the UK have chosen to make content from the USA available in the uk (or more accurately, do nothing to prevent it being available)

but ISPs do not have the power to decide if something is infringing a rule or not. Thus Ofcom goes through the motions of telling 4Chan "hey I think you're not compliant" and if 4Chan says "lol, I'm not serving UK people" _then_ the UK authority will tell the ISPs to block it (and the will be on the hook if they don't).

There are clear laws now, so they do have the power to decide if something's against those laws. This is besides the point I'm making though.

Ofcom should be telling the ISPs to take action, not the sites, since the ISPs are the "importers". They should never involve the site in the first place, and certainly not by trying send them empty threats of fines.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#817

Post by ghusto » Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 8:12 AM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #632

ghusto wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In this example 4chan is 'importing' it's content to the UK No, UK ISPs are importing 4chan into the UK. At no point is 4chan involved in the importing of it's content. It could even be argued it's not involved in exporting it either.

> It could even be argued it's not involved in exporting it either. It is providing content to IPs located in the UK, therefore, it's knowingly exporting content. If the user bypasses controls using VPNs or proxies, it's a different thing, but I would expect 4chan to make a reasonable effort on their side in order to prevent a sitewide block.

> It is providing content to IPs located in the UK, therefore, it's knowingly exporting content

This is not true. There are many steps before the content is provided to IPs in the UK, with the pertinent ones being after it reaches the ISP from the backbones.