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

831–840 of 936 posts

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

#831

Post by pc86 »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #827
pc86 wrote: post #810

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US regime is changing with the next presidential election regardless of the outcome (or lack thereof) of this war. Short of a nuclear exchange or China invading Taiwan or San Francisco, nothing is changing that.

Trump's private army taking guard outside the white house with the new military-grade defensive ballroom might change matters. Who exactly is going to force him to leave?

What are you talking about?

I sure hope I'll see you back here on 1/20/29 saying over and over again how wrong you were and how stupid this comment was but I'm sure you'll have some excuse, or pretend you never said it.

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

#832

Post by wnevets »

hunterpayne wrote: post #537
wnevets wrote: post #28

You mean the message board that collab-ed with Epstein? Delete them from the internet.

You realize that the Epsteins used Reddit way more than 4chan right? Maxwell was one of the first users to 1m karma.

and then he worked with reddit to create a special subreddit with content like you would find in /pol/?

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

#833

Post by pc86 »

kimixa wrote: post #134

People here seem to be thinking this a UK/Europe-specific phenomenon, but there's plenty of examples of the US "seizing" sites that were never hosted in the USA either, and even put pressure on countries to extradite people involved even if they never broke any laws in the country they're living in. One I remember was a site hosting streams of the 2022 football world cup. Or a number of Iranian-affiliated news sites…

> People going "Those Crazy Brits! Thank God That'll Never Happen Here!" seem pretty ill-informed.

Well the second part of that is ill-informed but the first part is just... informed?

As far as the US seizing sites, does that happen when the site is hosted outside of the US and without the cooperation of authorities where ever it is actually hosted? I don't think so but I'm happy to be proven wrong there.

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

#834

Post by whywhywhywhy »

john_strinlai wrote: post #801
SkyeCA wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and they have also driven people to suicide As has Reddit, Facebook, etc. Bad things occasionally happening on a platform doesn't make the platform/site inherently bad.

weird combination of "what about" and misinterpreting my comment.

Not really when you were holding up causing suicide as why it's bad when every high traffic social network has done that.

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

#835

Post by flir »

pc86 wrote: post #833
kimixa wrote: post #134

People here seem to be thinking this a UK/Europe-specific phenomenon, but there's plenty of examples of the US "seizing" sites that were never hosted in the USA either, and even put pressure on countries to extradite people involved even if they never broke any laws in the country they're living in. One I remember was a site hosting streams of the 2022 football world cup. Or a number of Iranian-affiliated news sites…

> People going "Those Crazy Brits! Thank God That'll Never Happen Here!" seem pretty ill-informed. Well the second part of that is ill-informed but the first part is just... informed? As far as the US seizing sites, does that happen when the site is hosted outside of the US and without the cooperation of authorities where ever it is actually hosted? I don't think so but I'm happy to be proven wrong there.

DNS.

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

#836

Post by whywhywhywhy »

LightBug1 wrote: post #246

Anyone want to sell/explain 4chan for me? I haven't thought about it at all since the last time I looked there maybe about 2 years ago. Still looks shit. What's the enduring appeal?

The creator of the 2channel and current owner of 4chan Hiroyuki Nishimura explains it:

>people can only truly discuss something when they don’t know each other.

>If there is a user ID attached to a user, a discussion tends to become a criticizing game. On the other hand, under the anonymous system, even though your opinion/information is criticized, you don’t know with whom to be upset. Also with a user ID, those who participate in the site for a long time tend to have authority, and it becomes difficult for a user to disagree with them.

>Under a perfectly anonymous system, you can say, “it’s boring,” if it is actually boring. All information is treated equally; only an accurate argument will work

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

#837

Post by john_strinlai »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #834
john_strinlai wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

weird combination of "what about" and misinterpreting my comment.

Not really when you were holding up causing suicide as why it's bad when every high traffic social network has done that.

yes, you are repeating the "what about" part. my comment has literally nothing to do with other social networks.

if it helps, feel free to apply the original quote to facebook or whatever when they do something good. but this article and comment chain is about 4chan. so i am talking about 4chan.

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

#838

Post by myrmidon »

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 .

I'd argue that Vietnam and Al-Qaida/Afghanistan/Iraq where much lesser "risks" than Iran, and those still left lasting scars on US society, self-image and standing.

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

#839

Post by pc86 »

gadders wrote: post #82

If it wasn't for 4Chan, we might never have solved the Haruhi problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpermutation#Lower_bounds,... I used to go on a curated version of 4Chan via Telegram. Yes there is a lot of racism (although it flies in every direction, between every ethnicity you could imagine) but there is also (due to the anonymous nature) some genuinely interesting discussions. I remember one thread about ai…

While there's plenty of legit, true racism throughout 4chan I was always struck by how incredibly specific it could get. Like "Congolese Bantus subjugating pygmies" kind of specific.

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

#840

Post by flir »

Loughla wrote: post #746
dash2 wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Laws are not a buffet. You choose to do business in a market, you've opted to be regulated in that market. I mean I find this quite plausible, but you should tell the guys in the thread above, who are all posting "ha, the UK thinks it can tell a non-UK website what to do, how absurd!" and metaphorically pouring their tea out in Boston Harbour.

I think there's a difference between a website that citizens from country a can access but who are not necessarily the group the website is created for, for free, and a paid saas that I sell to citizens of country a.

Maybe there's a moral difference (I doubt it personally), but there's clearly not a legal difference.

They're both examples of Country A putting a law on the books that constrains sites in Country B. "Don't sell", "don't serve", "don't stand on one leg while fulfilling orders", they're all the same class of overreach.

Post reply on HN