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

Post by xingped » Mon, Mar 23, 2026, 5:36 AM UTC

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…

Post by speefers » Mon, Mar 23, 2026, 10:34 AM UTC

oliwarner wrote: post #793

mattmanser wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so clear cut though is it. For example, does 4chan use a CDN? And is that CDN on UK/EU soil, serving this content? Therefore they're actually transacting that business on UK/EU soil. Didn't the US use this argument to prosecute and extradite the Mega founder? I wonder if the UK/EU will reverse uno the US's stance and start extraditions on US CEOs.

> Didn't the US use this argument to prosecute and extradite the Mega founder? The extradition has succeeded so far because it's based on acts that would have met a criminal bar in New Zealand, and deemed to have a high likelihood of being successfully prosecuted. Fraud, copyright infringement, etc. The US has standing because many MegaUpload servers were in the US.

Post by pc86 » Mon, Mar 23, 2026, 1:39 PM UTC

catlikesshrimp wrote: post #847

pc86 wrote: post #844

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by Leynos » Mon, Mar 23, 2026, 11:10 PM UTC

throwawaytea wrote: post #399

Leynos wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, here goes. You can tell when someone is acting in bad faith when they talk about a law that has been in force and enforced since the 1960s is something new. Of course, "touch grass" works just as well.

Laws can be in existence for decades before they are weaponized against people. It's illegal to have most eBay/Amazon bulbs on your car because they are not DOT approved. If someday they start impounding cars crossing state borders with light bars, fog lights, and LEDs of races they don't want in that state... Someone like you will say "you're just making stuff up, that law has been on effect since 1961."

Post by mapotofu » Tue, Mar 24, 2026, 7:15 PM UTC

financltravsty wrote: post #131

huflungdung wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven’t you considered that the fact you were exposed to these things made you who you are today am able to say that with conviction. If you had been shielded from the reality on human extremism you would not.

Vouched, because this was going to be my counterpoint as someone who had the same circumstances as the grandparent. Despite the enormously heinous stuff I've seen on that site, it has made me a better writer, developed my critical thinking skills, and given me a perspective on the world and its people that wouldn't have existed without. It also introduced me to many different things and developed my taste beyond meas…