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

841–850 of 936 posts

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

#841

Post by pc86 »

john_strinlai wrote: post #85
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…

there is a great clickhole headline that your comment reminds me of "Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point" 4chan has produced some hilarious/interesting stuff, and they have also driven people to suicide. i suppose it is up to everyone individually to make the value judgement there.

Well, much like HN, 4chan is a couple dozen boards of different topics frequented by something like 22 million unique users every month. So of course there's going to be good things there. And of course there's going to be bad things there. You don't get to pick and choose.

Trying to make a "value judgment" and boil the whole thing down to "4chan good" or "4chan bad," seems with even the most generous interpretation... incredibly reductive and foolhardy.

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

#842

Post by dukeyukey »

userbinator wrote: post #529
dukeyukey wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth pointing out the modern American conception of freedom of speech is super recent. It only really became a thing in the 1970s. Before then, restrictions on porn, film, even written materials on controversial subjects like abortion could and were regulated.

The 1st Amendment was over 200 years ago, basically a few decades after the US was founded. There was always a rather large libertarian faction.

The 1st Amendment is old, but the way it's applied today is quite radical compared to how it was applied for most of American history. The US being so free speech isn't much older than the median American is.

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

#843

Post by pc86 »

bigfatkitten wrote: post #546
spacedcowboy wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[sigh] and this is the first (mandated) step in that process. The UK don’t expect 4chan to pay the fine, which means, once the period to pay has expired, they’ll just be blocked instead.

They could skip that step entirely if the relevant legislation was people with even a general grasp of geography and how the Internet works.

Yes but this is British legislation so that Venn diagram is two non-overlapping circles.

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

#844

Post by pc86 »

flir wrote: post #835
pc86 wrote: post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What about it?

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

#845

Post by pc86 »

mothballed wrote: post #813
pc86 wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is stopping you from breaking a given law if there is zero chance you'll be jailed or killed for doing so?

Social ostracism, loss of voting rights, loss of licensing, loss of ability to volunteer for some of your children's activities, loss of job opportunities because your name is on a docket or list of sexual offenders, higher insurance rates, loss of rental options, possible difficulty obtaining a passport or getting a visa, potentially being dropped from certain bank activities during due diligence, etc Being jailed w…

All of those other things (except maybe social ostracism), are also backed up by the force of the state and it's honestly kind of concerning you don't see that.

Even debanking only happens because the banks themselves face fines from the state, which if unpaid leads to loss of licensure, after which continued operation leads to... jail. You only need a passport because if you try to push through security without one, you're going to jail. I'm sure if I wanted to waste my time I could follow the thread on all the other ones too.

Social ostracism is a good point. Perhaps the exception that proves the rule?

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

#846

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

Auracle wrote: post #612
reverius42 wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear you're saying only the top 2 countries by GDP are "economically relevant"?

I think they’re saying they used to be one of the big boys. Now they’re just a regular boy.

Weird, America usually goes "Regular, Big, Mega, King Size, Super Size, etc.", not the other way round!

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

#847

Post by catlikesshrimp »

pc86 wrote: post #844
flir wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DNS.

What about it?

If they can't undo the site at the tld level, the US can still compel the DNS servers nearby to erase their record, or redirect it to a "this domain is seized" page. In extremis. they could just poison the DNS addresses of blocked websites although they dot need to.

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

#848

Post by nehal3m »

mothballed wrote: post #813
pc86 wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is stopping you from breaking a given law if there is zero chance you'll be jailed or killed for doing so?

Social ostracism, loss of voting rights, loss of licensing, loss of ability to volunteer for some of your children's activities, loss of job opportunities because your name is on a docket or list of sexual offenders, higher insurance rates, loss of rental options, possible difficulty obtaining a passport or getting a visa, potentially being dropped from certain bank activities during due diligence, etc Being jailed w…

Your moral compass?

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

#849

Post by mothballed »

pc86 wrote: post #845
mothballed wrote: post #813

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social ostracism, loss of voting rights, loss of licensing, loss of ability to volunteer for some of your children's activities, loss of job opportunities because your name is on a docket or list of sexual offenders, higher insurance rates, loss of rental options, possible difficulty obtaining a passport or getting a visa, potentially being dropped from certain bank activities during due diligence, etc Being jailed w…

All of those other things (except maybe social ostracism), are also backed up by the force of the state and it's honestly kind of concerning you don't see that. Even debanking only happens because the banks themselves face fines from the state, which if unpaid leads to loss of licensure, after which continued operation leads to... jail. You only need a passport because if you try to push through security without one,…

I absolutely agree with you in substance. My main point is I think jailing is way overused and of usually of dubious value. It's extremely expensive, harms the victims (they literally have to pay taxes to pay for the aggressors), of dubious value in most cases, functions as criminal university, does little rehabilitation.

Of course it needn't be a centralized state per se. Somalis for example use 'xeer' law which is a scalable legal system that starts peer to peer and appealable upwards, mostly based on restitution/fines and ostracizing those who do not pay (eventually to the point, they could become 'outlaws' that have no protection from crime themselves).

I think restitution based legal system is ideal, but of course that would flip on its head the current system where the state ousts the victim and becomes the victim themselves and deprives the victim of restitution instead turning it into a big cronyism money making machine for themselves at the expense of everyone else. It would also mean the end of most 'victimless' crime, and god knows the wailing and nashing of teeth that would come when you couldn't prosecute someone for smoking a left handed cigarette because there is no victim to prosecute the case [or on behalf of].

Post reply on HN