4 ms·

I think you’re overanalyzing it. They’re just enforcing the law. You and I may agree that it’s a bad law, but that doesn’t mean that the people in charge of enf

by foldr 1y ago

I think you’re overanalyzing it. They’re just enforcing the law. You and I may agree that it’s a bad law, but that doesn’t mean that the people in charge of enforcing it necessarily have complex and sinister motives.

alphazard 1y ago
I don't agree that wanting to further one's own career is complex or sinister. If the enforcement of laws wasn't aligned with career progress it would be bad for enforcement, including the laws that you and I want enforced. Even if the goal is just enforcement, you would get more enforcement, collect more fines, if you didn't put your ability to actually collect fines into question. When 4chan successfully defends itself and the UK extracts no money, that will show US companies which would have been in doubt, that they can also defend themselves.
- foldr 1y ago
  Sure I mean, people generally want to do their jobs, which in this case means fining sites that don’t comply with the legislation. I don’t see any reason to think that it’s more complex than that. If 4chan doesn’t comply then the site will probably be blocked by UK ISPs, so I don’t think the logic in your second paragraph really goes through.
  - aydyn 1y ago
    A job is not just robotically following a script. If your actions have negative impact on the goals of your job and you do it anyway, you are bad at your job.
    - foldr 1y ago
      I didn’t make any claim about people being good at their jobs. But I’m not sure why you think that this will have a negative impact on OFCOM’s goals. Imposing the fine is probably just a formal preliminary to having UK ISPs block 4chan.
      - aydyn 1y ago
        In this case, Ofcom's stated goal (which I admit may be different than their actual goal) is to get overseas companies to comply with their rules. I think you may be giving them too much credit. You're essentially saying that their real goal is to get an ISP block and everything they are doing now is performative to get to that real, unstated goal. On the other hand I may be underestimating them as, to me, they just seem like power-tripping troglodytes.
        foldr 1y ago
        I don't think the fine is performative. It's just the first sanction that gets applied. I don't understand why you think that's incompatible with Ofcom's stated goal.
- basisword 1y ago
  >> When 4chan successfully defends itself How do you expect this to happen? The law is pretty clear and afaik 4chan has been pretty explicit that they know the law and they're ignoring it. 4chan's 'out' is that they don't have any legal presence in the UK. More legitimate enterprises do so the results of this will have no bearing on them.
  - alphazard 1y ago
    I'm talking specifically about US companies, which make up the lion's share of popular websites. They are served from the US as a primary location, and the company is incorporated there as well. Modulo CDN hosted assets, there is no presence in the UK. If the company is in the UK, then yes, they are obviously screwed. The damage to the UK's web presence has already been done. I don't expect anyone would want to incorporate an internet dependent company there.
  - mytailorisrich 1y ago
    If this is deemed illegal in an US court then the OSA will be unenforcebale against US entities in the US (though not sure what's needed to set precedent). This is important because otherwise UK fines may be enforceable in US courts.
    - bigbadfeline 1y ago
      > This is important because otherwise UK fines may be enforceable in US courts. UK law is generally unenforcible in the US except extradition agreements for crimes commuted while residing in the UK. That's not the case here and there's no agreement that applies to this case.
      - mytailorisrich 1y ago
        It is possible to enforce UK judgements and fines in the US, though my understanding is that it is not simple or guaranteed. I suppose the action 4chan is taking in US court is exactly to avoid this possibility.
laughing_man 1y ago
You're underestimating how much thought governments put into things. Bureaucrats wouldn't be showcasing their own impotence with no reason.
- ToucanLoucan 1y ago
  You're overestimating how much thought governments put into things. Governments are just organizations and organizations are made of people. We see plenty of folly in the private sector; the government can do it too, don't you worry. Arguably they can do folly in ways the private sector only dreams of, what with being funded by the taxpayer. The org is enforcing the law as written. The law, as written, is fucking stupid. Ergo the enforcement actions that derive from it themselves look fucking stupid.
  - laughing_man 1y ago
    Sure, governments are organizations made up of people. But they're hierarchical organizations. There are really only a handful of people who matter when it comes to making decisions. They are enforcing the law, but why pick out 4chan? Because everyone has heard of 4chan.
rob_c 1y ago
no, ofcom don't need to be picking the fights they are, they're choosing to support the political arm under the claims of "hate speech" and "ungood bad think"
- KaiserPro 1y ago
  > they're choosing to support the political arm under the claims of "hate speech" and "ungood bad think" I do wonder if you bother to actually read the stuff you are typing. like have you _met_ anyone from ofcom? or seen the shit that 4chan routinely post? 4chan is literally the living embodiment of what the OSA was designed(and will probably fail) to stop. No moderation, loads of porn, incitement to violence but to your point, `claims of "hate speech"` Ofcom have no mandate for hate speech. But then I imagine facts are less interesting than a daydream of cypherpunk rebellion.
  - amiga386 1y ago
    There is plenty of moderation on 4chan. It actively avoids breaking the laws of the country it's hosted in (the USA). You may not like what's on it, but it's not "extreme". It used to be more extreme, it's not today. It's why spinoffs like 8chan were created, they felt there was too much moderation on 4chan. If you hear of some diabolical internet stunt, these days it was probably soyjak.party that organised it, not 4chan's /b/ As you allude, Ofcom cares not, they just want all sites to bend the knee to them.
miohtama 1y ago
The law is law, but Ofcom wrote the regulation (1000+ pages) themselves with their interest groups. A lot of regulators went through revolving door and are now selling services for complying with Online Safety Act.

by foldr 1y ago

alphazard 1y ago

I don't agree that wanting to further one's own career is complex or sinister. If the enforcement of laws wasn't aligned with career progress it would be bad for enforcement, including the laws that you and I want enforced. Even if the goal is just enforcement, you would get more enforcement, collect more fines, if you didn't put your ability to actually collect fines into question. When 4chan successfully defends itself and the UK extracts no money, that will show US companies which would have been in doubt, that they can also defend themselves.

foldr 1y ago
Sure I mean, people generally want to do their jobs, which in this case means fining sites that don’t comply with the legislation. I don’t see any reason to think that it’s more complex than that. If 4chan doesn’t comply then the site will probably be blocked by UK ISPs, so I don’t think the logic in your second paragraph really goes through.
- aydyn 1y ago
  A job is not just robotically following a script. If your actions have negative impact on the goals of your job and you do it anyway, you are bad at your job.
  - foldr 1y ago
    I didn’t make any claim about people being good at their jobs. But I’m not sure why you think that this will have a negative impact on OFCOM’s goals. Imposing the fine is probably just a formal preliminary to having UK ISPs block 4chan.
    - aydyn 1y ago
      In this case, Ofcom's stated goal (which I admit may be different than their actual goal) is to get overseas companies to comply with their rules. I think you may be giving them too much credit. You're essentially saying that their real goal is to get an ISP block and everything they are doing now is performative to get to that real, unstated goal. On the other hand I may be underestimating them as, to me, they just seem like power-tripping troglodytes.
      - foldr 1y ago
        I don't think the fine is performative. It's just the first sanction that gets applied. I don't understand why you think that's incompatible with Ofcom's stated goal.
basisword 1y ago
>> When 4chan successfully defends itself How do you expect this to happen? The law is pretty clear and afaik 4chan has been pretty explicit that they know the law and they're ignoring it. 4chan's 'out' is that they don't have any legal presence in the UK. More legitimate enterprises do so the results of this will have no bearing on them.
- alphazard 1y ago
  I'm talking specifically about US companies, which make up the lion's share of popular websites. They are served from the US as a primary location, and the company is incorporated there as well. Modulo CDN hosted assets, there is no presence in the UK. If the company is in the UK, then yes, they are obviously screwed. The damage to the UK's web presence has already been done. I don't expect anyone would want to incorporate an internet dependent company there.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  If this is deemed illegal in an US court then the OSA will be unenforcebale against US entities in the US (though not sure what's needed to set precedent). This is important because otherwise UK fines may be enforceable in US courts.
  - bigbadfeline 1y ago
    > This is important because otherwise UK fines may be enforceable in US courts. UK law is generally unenforcible in the US except extradition agreements for crimes commuted while residing in the UK. That's not the case here and there's no agreement that applies to this case.
    - mytailorisrich 1y ago
      It is possible to enforce UK judgements and fines in the US, though my understanding is that it is not simple or guaranteed. I suppose the action 4chan is taking in US court is exactly to avoid this possibility.

laughing_man 1y ago

You're underestimating how much thought governments put into things. Bureaucrats wouldn't be showcasing their own impotence with no reason.

ToucanLoucan 1y ago
You're overestimating how much thought governments put into things. Governments are just organizations and organizations are made of people. We see plenty of folly in the private sector; the government can do it too, don't you worry. Arguably they can do folly in ways the private sector only dreams of, what with being funded by the taxpayer. The org is enforcing the law as written. The law, as written, is fucking stupid. Ergo the enforcement actions that derive from it themselves look fucking stupid.
- laughing_man 1y ago
  Sure, governments are organizations made up of people. But they're hierarchical organizations. There are really only a handful of people who matter when it comes to making decisions. They are enforcing the law, but why pick out 4chan? Because everyone has heard of 4chan.

rob_c 1y ago

no, ofcom don't need to be picking the fights they are, they're choosing to support the political arm under the claims of "hate speech" and "ungood bad think"

KaiserPro 1y ago
> they're choosing to support the political arm under the claims of "hate speech" and "ungood bad think" I do wonder if you bother to actually read the stuff you are typing. like have you _met_ anyone from ofcom? or seen the shit that 4chan routinely post? 4chan is literally the living embodiment of what the OSA was designed(and will probably fail) to stop. No moderation, loads of porn, incitement to violence but to your point, `claims of "hate speech"` Ofcom have no mandate for hate speech. But then I imagine facts are less interesting than a daydream of cypherpunk rebellion.
- amiga386 1y ago
  There is plenty of moderation on 4chan. It actively avoids breaking the laws of the country it's hosted in (the USA). You may not like what's on it, but it's not "extreme". It used to be more extreme, it's not today. It's why spinoffs like 8chan were created, they felt there was too much moderation on 4chan. If you hear of some diabolical internet stunt, these days it was probably soyjak.party that organised it, not 4chan's /b/ As you allude, Ofcom cares not, they just want all sites to bend the knee to them.

miohtama 1y ago

The law is law, but Ofcom wrote the regulation (1000+ pages) themselves with their interest groups. A lot of regulators went through revolving door and are now selling services for complying with Online Safety Act.