31 ms·

4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

• ridruejo 1y ago
  This is a really well-written article. The whole thing is so absurd and this makes it so clear.
  • cdfsdsadsa 1y ago
    FWIW I agree with the intent of the Act, and am generally in favour of a sovereign firewall. Edit: In a nutshell - almost every other transfer of goods and services across national borders is subject to quality standards. Why do we give a pass to a system that allows deep, individualised access to people's personal lives and mental processes?
    • probably_wrong 1y ago
      Right now you're downvoted for expressing an opinion that I believe deserves a deeper discussion. I don't want the government to decide which thoughts I can access and which ones I can't, but I also understand that allowing a foreign power (let's say Russia, although "the US" works just as fine) to freely run undercover propaganda and/or destabilization campaigns without any recourse doesn't look good either. And while I agree with "when in doubt aim for the option with more freedom", I can understand those who share your position.
      • oytis 1y ago
        What about domestic entities running undercover propaganda campaigns - as we have seen e.g. with Cambridge Analytica? Should we maybe focus on the more fundamental problem of our democracies being vulnerable to propaganda campaigns rather than making sure that only "good" and "sovereign" propaganda campaigns are allowed?
        • cdfsdsadsa 1y ago
          > Should we maybe focus on the more fundamental problem of our democracies being vulnerable to propaganda campaigns Step 1 is reduce your attack surface :) As a second point, democracies are propaganda campaigns - it's a feature, not a bug. I believe that national cultural and societal norms play a key part in self-regulation. I think it's too much to ask for those balancing forces to work as effectively without first turning down the firehose.
          • oytis 1y ago
            Being able to implement any decision by running a targeted campaign discouraging it's opponents from voting and swaying the undecided can't be a feature or we have very different understanding of democracy. By closing up we defend us from some threats, but open gates wide for others. Foreign actors compete against much stronger domestic media machines and as you mentioned have to operate in foreign cultural environments. Gaining true influence also always involves financial flows, not just propaganda campaigns, so it is sure possible to mitigate these threats without closing information flow. Consider the opposite threat of democracies being undermined from within. If some internal "threat actor" gets control of the executive branch and of the media and also can prevent information flow from the outside, very little can be done against it. I think it is critical to keep in mind this second possibility even when the first threat seems more urgent.
            • cdfsdsadsa 1y ago
              There are entire political industries openly dedicated to swaying the undecided! It's a messy business, but that's what we have. Propaganda is not necessarily to gain influence or money. Eg: Country x just wants to mess with people's heads and turn them on each other to weaken a rival country. Or: Country y runs a crafted propaganda campaign against a rival. As a result, some sector of its own economy starts doing better at the expense of its rival. >If some internal "threat actor" gets control of the executive branch and of the media and also can prevent information flow from the outside, very little can be done against it. I understand the scenario (it's far from new), but that's what the design of any particular democracy is supposed to minimise. Term limits, separation of government powers, etc.
      • cdfsdsadsa 1y ago
        >I don't want the government to decide which thoughts I can access and which ones I can't That would be an interesting discussion in itself, but even so - accessing material in isolation over the internet removes all of the benefits of cultural and community self-regulation. >freely run undercover propaganda and/or destabilization campaigns I'm of the opinion that WWW3 has already happened - it was a war for hearts and minds waged over the internet, and we've already lost.
        • iamnothere 1y ago
          > cultural and community self-regulation This is a very fancy way of saying “censorship”. > I'm of the opinion that WWW3 has already happened - it was a war for hearts and minds waged over the internet, and we've already lost. If the open, unfettered exchange of culture and ideas is such a threat to our system then we deserve to lose. If my only option is to be stuck in a system that enforces ideological conformity on its subjects, then I’d rather it be the Chinese system. At least it’s not so dysfunctional! If we are receiving all of the downsides of a liberal democracy without the benefits, what’s the point anymore?
          • ants_everywhere 1y ago
            You have it backwards. Ideological conformity these days is enforced by creating the illusion that everyone around you is ideologically conforming. The question is: is there a defense against this? Your answer currently is there is no defense because creating an illusion of unanimous ideological conformity counts as an exchange of ideas and that exchange must not be hindered. The debate is over whether the right to conduct Sybil attacks is more precious than the right to freedom of thought. The question is vastly harder than many people in this thread seem to believe. My personal take is that the right to freedom of thought is more fundamental and that the value of freedom of speech is via its support for freedom of thought.
        • stinkbeetle 1y ago
          > I'm of the opinion that WWW3 has already happened - it was a war for hearts and minds waged over the internet, and we've already lost. Who is we, and who won? What did they win?
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      • energy123 1y ago
        Something needs to be done. The outcomes are manifestly bad. I can't take the pro-freedom intellectual argument seriously unless it's coupled with a suite of pragmatic solutions to the negative side effects I am observing with my own senses. The intellectual walls of text just aren't papering over that reality.
        • tokai 1y ago
          >The outcomes are manifestly bad. That's just as bad of an argument as so-called intellectual walls of text. Nothing needs to be done, the outcomes are not bad. My argument is as strong as yours.
          • energy123 1y ago
            The Internet Research Agency organizing multiple Black Lives Matter protests due to control over approximately 50% of the largest identity-based Facebook groups is just one small example on a long list of examples of social unrest and the consequential ushering in of sectarianism and destruction of democracy that the current status quo is enabling. The pro-freedom types do not even know this is happening let alone have any solutions to it. Turning a blind eye is all they have. So until they show an awareness of the existence of the issue I will be siding with the only people who have put any effort into addressing the problems.
            • aydyn 1y ago
              Lets assume you are right that there is effectively a constant stream of low level sybil attacks attempting to destabilize society, and they are effective. Censoring view points is equivalent to signal boosting other view points. Why do you trust the UK government to select the correct view points given all the strong evidence to the contrary?
        • array_key_first 1y ago
          Propaganda campaigns are one thing, but the reality is these laws target stupid ass shit like porn. Is that a made up problem? IMO: yes. That's a PARENT'S responsibility, not mine. There are legitimate arguments in favor of a national firewall. Nobody is making them.
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    • oytis 1y ago
      I'd argue transfer of services is not really an issue. People buying services from a foreign entity is a pretty fringe case, and most legitimate businesses will try to establish a local presence for that anyway. Sovereign firewalls are mostly used by countries that have them for censorship and surveillance, and I think letting governments use a pretext of digital services being able to avoid tolls and taxes to establish such a powerful tool would be a huge mistake.
    • Aachen 1y ago
      Because it's about the free exchange of information, not another trade war
    • huflungdung 1y ago
      [dead]
• cdfsdsadsa 1y ago
  >The way we protect British kids from the Internet is to make better and more capable Britons, rather than to try and kidproof the entire internet. If only it were that easy. For me as a parent, my approach is to implement a "Great personal firewall" - that is, internet restrictions that decrease over time as they mature, and starting with essentially zero access. Unfortunately, it's probably doomed to fail as other kids their age (5 + 7) and in their peer groups are already walking around with smartphones. To put it bluntly, too many parents are too unenaged and lazy (or self-centered).
  • vkazanov 1y ago
    Same problem. Tried to balance some kind of freedom with limitations but it just didn't work. Then I found discord, read through some chats... Now it's just outright forbidden to have anything with a chat. And no Internet. The problem is that other 10 year old have mobiles, free PC access, etc, so there constant peer pressure.
    • Cthulhu_ 1y ago
      Exactly, plus there's free, mostly unrestricted wifi everywhere. If your child has some pocket or birthday money they can freely spend, they can walk into an electronics store, buy a cheap smartphone or tablet and have unrestricted access. At home measures are at best a delay, not a fix. What you also have to do is actually communicate with your child. If you're strict about what they can and cannot do on the internet, they will feel shame for doing it anyway, which may also mean they would be too ashamed to talk to their parents if for example they are getting groomed online.
      • cdfsdsadsa 1y ago
        That was originally going to be my plan - my kids can have a smartphone when they can afford to buy one themselves. I figured that by this point they would be old and experienced enough to deal with it. As I pointed out above, some of their peers at ages 5-7 already have parentally-supplied smartphones. It sucks that I'm probably going to have to talk to my currently 5-year-old girl very soon about what the internet has to offer.
• oytis 1y ago
  It's fourth decade of WWW and the governments still haven't figured anything better than applying their sovereignty globally.
• spuz 1y ago
  I don't understand why the British government's solution is to impose orders on British ISPs as they have done with other websites that they want to block, rather than try to impose on a company based in another country.
  • miohtama 1y ago
    It's because of s long history of being a nanny state, and now they have bi-partisan political drive to export this.
• IlikeKitties 1y ago
  I bought a 4chan pass today just to support the effort. If there's ever a hornets nest you don't want to fuck with it's 4chan and i can't imagine a better poking stick than ofcom.
  • 4ggr0 1y ago
    the rasion d'etre of 4chan can probably be discussed forever, but i can't imagine donating money to such a vile, hate-filled platform. surely there are better causes fighting for the same things, right? i know, freedom of speech, it's your money and not mine, etc.
    • janwl 1y ago
      One man’s hate is another man’s love.
    • tronicjester 1y ago
      Whose hate filled platform? Is there proof mods push general threads or curate content? If the "hate" is legit perspectives from the populous then its important. Reddit is highly curated and far more echoey than 4chan. Never seen pro-Jesus/Islam threads on main page of Reddit. 4chan has them all the time on multiple boards.
      • 4ggr0 1y ago
        > Is there proof mods push general threads or curate content? how does this relate to what i said? i get the "we're a free platform where everyone can do everything and no one is responsible for anything", just a cheap excuse from my POV considering the unhinged, doxxy culture on there. sure, there are cute boards, nice. i am talking about the inhumane, unhinged slurry of shit. "Sure my neighbour has a couple of cadavres in his cellar, but have you seen the pretty flowers on his balcony?" but per usual you can't criticize 4chan in the slightest without its warriors appearing to defend it. i get it. 4chan did and does cool stuff. it also does absolutely disgusting things, surprisingly this always gets dismissed as 'it's only the couple of rogue boards which are crazy'.
• epanchin 1y ago
  Is there a solution where we can compel parental control to be enabled by default on kids phones? That would seem to be least intrusive option. Using the internet in the UK/EU is such a horrible experience, every cookie pop-up is a reminder how badly thought out these rules are.
  • crtasm 1y ago
    Install uBlock. In its settings: Filter Lists -> Cookie notices
  • cedws 1y ago
    I hate that the internet is being destroyed in the name of iPad kids
  • HPsquared 1y ago
    Come to think of it, parental control would be a neat application for something like Apple Intelligence. A local system service that is "trustworthy enough" to monitor everything on screen, and written content too.
    • pr337h4m 1y ago
      This would enable/catalyze an order of magnitude more child abuse than anything that can happen on the worst cesspits of the internet.
      • HPsquared 1y ago
        I don't see how a content blocker would do that.
    • Cthulhu_ 1y ago
      Why Apple Intelligence when screen recording has been a feature for parental control systems for ages?
      • HPsquared 1y ago
• HPsquared 1y ago
  They want to block things, but don't want the optics of being one of "those" countries with a national firewall. So we get things like this.
  • thewebguyd 1y ago
    That's what it seems like. Instead of getting court orders and ordering ISPs to block the sites, the UK is pushing off the responsibility for age verification onto the companies/site owners whether they are actually under UK jurisdiction or not. Because if instead the UK just managed it internally, and started ordering ISPs to block, they'd be criticized foor being like China, and the citizens would start placing their blame on the government instead of the private companies that are pulling out of the market.
  • RobotToaster 1y ago
    We already have hadrian's firewall blocking some piracy sites.
  • rpcope1 1y ago
    Given the constant stream of crazy things I read about the UK, I'm surprised that a national firewall is off the table given their laws and attitudes around what would be protected speech here.
    • subscribed 1y ago
      That will be after introduction of the digital ID, mandatory tagging of pal the traffic with your identity and backdooring/declaring e2ee Apps unlawful.
  • Levitz 1y ago
    That part I understand, it surely looks awful. The ID side of things though? Having your citizenry send their personal information to foreign companies all across the globe? It's a disaster waiting to happen.
• tasuki 1y ago
  > The Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this expressly includes conducting investigations into, and imposing penalties for, non-compliance by providers of online services with their duties under the Act. […] The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect I don't see anything wrong here: Sure, Ofcom can have the legal authority to regulate online safety worldwide. It's just that this... legal authority... isn't quite enforceable outside the UK jurisdiction. How unfortunate!
  • pavlov 1y ago
    It’s presumably meant to be effective against global corporations like Meta and Google that have significant operations in the UK. They can be liable for non-compliance globally and Ofcom doesn’t have to show it occurred within the UK.
    • jojobas 1y ago
      Yep, then and their German counterpart have many times asked Facebook to censor stuff for the entire world and they've complied every time.
  • LordN00b 1y ago
    There is plenty of precedence for this, and I am about to fudge a bunch of details. The basic point is that the United Kingdom can make any law it sees fit to any place or person. Even though it may only exercise punitive issues once they arrival inside the physical jurisdiction. So the example I was taught, the UK can pass a law banning smoking in Paris, but may not arrest/fine until such criminal trespassers get off the ferry in UK. This means that the Sovereign power is omni-whatevers, unless you explicitly say otherwise eg The UK Legislated their way out of South Africa and Canada expilictly. If 4Chans money ever passes through a UK bank, I'm sure Ofcom will grab what they can. It's a very British shakedown.
    • jojobas 1y ago
      This case is more like UK bans selling cigarettes and tries going after a Parisian tobacconist.
• cess11 1y ago
  I'd like for someone to do a parental rights case at the ECHR against this, e.g. by claiming that according to their religion and traditional culture kids in their teens should be getting into contact with porn, snuff and the like, and that they as parents have a right to transfer this to their kids.
• ntoskrnl_exe 1y ago
  It seems to me the UK isn’t all that aware of just how gone are the days of the British Empire. I can imagine the OSA being somewhat relevant internationally in the pre-handover days, but not today.
• aboringusername 1y ago
  Just reading the first correspondence from Ofcom and this section in particular: > What should I do if there is confidential information in my response? > You must provide all the information requested, even if you consider that the information, or any part of it, is confidential (for example, because of its commercial sensitivity). > If you consider that any of the information you are required to provide is confidential, you should clearly identify the relevant information and explain in writing your reasons for considering it confidential (for example, the reasons why you consider disclosure of the information will seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of your business, a third party or the private affairs of an individual. You may find it helpful to do this in a separate document marked ‘confidential information’ > Ofcom will take into account any claims that information should be considered confidential. However, it is for Ofcom to decide what is or is not confidential, taking into account any relevant common law and statutory definitions. We do not accept unjustified or unsubstantiated claims of confidentiality. Blanket claims of confidentiality covering entire documents or types of information are also unhelpful and will rarely be accepted. For example, we would expect stakeholders to consider whether the fact of the document’s existence or particular elements of the document (e.g. its title or metadata such as to/from/date/subject or other specific content) are not confidential. You should therefore identify specific words, numbers, phrases or pieces of information you consider to be confidential. You may also find it helpful to categorise your explanations as Category A, Category B etc > Any confidential information provided to Ofcom is subject to restrictions on its further disclosure under the common law of confidence. In many cases, information provided to Ofcom is also subject to statutory restrictions relating to the disclosure of that information (regardless of whether that information is confidential information). For this reason, we do not generally consider it necessary to sign non-disclosure agreements. Our general approach to the disclosure of information is set out below. > For the avoidance of doubt, you are not required to provide information that is legally privileged and you can redact specific parts of documents that are legally privileged. However, where you withhold information on the basis that it is privileged you should provide Ofcom with a summary of the nature of the information and an explanation of why you consider it to be privileged. Please note that just because an email is sent to or from a legal adviser does not mean it is necessarily a legally privileged communication. Further information is available in paragraph 3.18 of our Online Safety Information Powers Guidance. So ofcom's position is: We want your data, you will give us your data, the GDPR does not apply to you, and if it does, we will decide whether it does. You must explain yourself to us. You must not redact anything. Even if you think you can redact anything (you know, because GDPR) you cannot redact anything. The GDPR and data protection laws do not apply because we have said so. You are required to break confidentiality agreements. We will not sign an NDA because we do not need to and we will not justify ourselves to you in any way shape or form. We are the UK, and therefore, because we asked you to, you will comply with our every demand, whim and whimper. Otherwise we will continue to send strongly worded emails. And fine you. And block you. Because that's the only thing we can do. And you best not advertise VPN's or we'll...Send another sternly worded email! Good job UK! (I cannot see how that paragraph is in any way legal, it must break the EU/UK's data protection laws in trying to compel disclosure of third party data. I cannot see any court in the UK ever upholding that paragraph if legally challenged as it's way above Ofcom's remit to be demanding confidential data. In any case, they should absolutely be required to sign NDA's)
• paxiongmap 1y ago
  "The least bad thing that Ofcom and the Government could do is to quietly let the matter drop whilst focusing on education." This generalises very well for all Government. Shame we're a couple of generations into education being about producing pliant workers over independent, thinking human beings.
  • potato3732842 1y ago
    >This generalises very well for all Government. The government shouldn't be dropping things. It should have the power to pick those things up in the first place. It's like a fishing stop. Even if you get off with a warning the whole interaction just shouldn't have happened.
  • dyauspitr 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • preisschild 1y ago
      > TikTok destroys our boys by turning them into trans ??? Do you really believe that?
      • dyauspitr 1y ago
        It’s a conservative talking point, I’m pretty progressive on most things but yeah I think this one has validity.
    • DaSHacka 1y ago
      Neither of these things happen, but even if either was miraculously true, should the onus be on the entirety of society to self-censor, or on the kids parents to parent properly (IE use parental controls and supervise screen time)?
      • dyauspitr 1y ago
        Entire society to self censor. Individual parental level controls are ineffective. It’s like keeping your child from having a smart phone at school but then they just become a social pariah since everyone else has one. It only works if no kids are allowed to bring their smartphones to school.
• crtasm 1y ago
  "Irony is overwhelming" does not appear within the article; should be removed from the title here.
  • dang 1y ago
    Ok, we have removed irony from the title above.
• silexia 1y ago
  Some people see this as comedic, but government bureaucrats and politicians have always had a sucking desire for control over our lives. They will keep pushing until all of us are in strait jackets living in a nightmare. We must resist and do everything we can to shrink government power and grow our personal rights and freedoms.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
    • cindyllm 1y ago
      [dead]
• antisol 1y ago
  This reminds me of when Australia tried to force twitter to block a video globally: https://news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/elon-musk-wins-latest-censorship https://news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/elon-musk-wins-latest-c... In one of the more enlightened things Elon has done in the last few years, he fought back, and he won. Interestingly, here in AU, there was a storm of media outrage at the time, saying all kinds of nasty things about Musk, making all kinds of assertions about how he was super arrogant and wrong to insist on upholding american's freedom of speech, with no attempt to justify why. It was almost like we were just expected to assume that AU law applies everywhere on earth. Here's a fun sample of a totally unbiased article from the time: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-20/elon-musk-reacts-to-esafety-commissioner-asking-x-to-take-down-/103748930 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-20/elon-musk-reacts-to-e... Strangely, when the court order wasn't upheld because AU laws don't actually apply outside our country, and the gubmint that was so outraged and "ready to take him on" lost badly on every point, there was no huge storm of media coverage about that.
  • simmerup 1y ago
    Hopefully the machinery of various governments will continue to grind away at silicons valleys influence.
    • account42 1y ago
      Be careful what you wish for.
• arresin 1y ago
  Oi, ‘av you got yer internet loisence?
  • jjangkke 1y ago
    Jokes aside, what on earth is going on with the UK? It seems to have serious demographic issues and actual ethnic English are understandably angry at having been largely vilified as Nazis and far-right for wanting to protect their heritage and identity. To reach into draconian surveillance and censorship to quell its own natives of the land who has lived there for thousands of years at the behest of those that have arrived from far away lands with a drastically incompatible culture with the British is a recipe for civil war.
    • robk 1y ago
      Yep that sums it up. Scary.
    • arresin 1y ago
      > drastically incompatible culture with the British is a recipe for civil war. That is the true reason for the surveillance state and these new transgressions. If you’ve had that thought it stands to reason they have also.
    • account42 1y ago
      It's not just the UK really, they are just a bit further ahead than the rest of the western world.
• OvbiousError 1y ago
  Am I missing something here? 4chan is available in the UK so has to follow UK laws there, where is the problem? Regardless of whatever it is they are enforcing.
  • treesknees 1y ago
    4chan, the owner/company, does not operate out of the UK. It’s a US company. They are only bound to US laws. Just because UK internet users are able to establish a network connection to 4chan’s server via ISP peering agreements does not mean 4chan are subject to UK law.
    • patrickmay 1y ago
      This is the right framing. No site, including 4chan, is forcing their content on innocent Brits. The only way people in the UK see 4chan is by proactively establishing a connection to the site and requesting the download of data. Those users, not 4chan, are the active agents. If the UK government wants to control what its subjects request online, they should pass laws regulating that behavior.
    • jeroenhd 1y ago
      As long as 4chan sells 4chan passes to UK citizens, they do business in the UK. They sell using crypto so there's not much for the UK to go after, but they do more than just "be available".
      • EarlKing 1y ago
        Great! If this is so, then you should be able to prove that UK citizens are using crypto to purchase their services and that 4chan is expressly aware of this fact. I'm sure this proof will be forthcoming presently...
      • treesknees 1y ago
        Two counter points. First, crypto is not part of the UK government's financial systems or institutions. They don't automatically hold jurisdiction over all crypto transactions, or more specifically, crypto service providers. Second, again, 4chan does not operate in the UK. If someone in the UK purchases a 4chan pass, they have electronically transmitted their "money" over to the US to buy it. I would compare this to a UK citizen flying over to the US and buying a ticket, and bringing it back with them to the UK. It's very clear, 4chan did not perform any business or transactions within UK jurisdiction.
• ibejoeb 1y ago
  Lol. Here's my policy. I declare my extra-territorial effect. Because your house is not my territory, it's mine now.
• lenerdenator 1y ago
  Ofcom does know that they're dealing with 4chan, right? Ultimately all of these sorts of regulations rely on people feeling the need to comply. 4chan feels no needs, least of all to comply. It's the immovable object of online forums. It has not encountered a true unstoppable force. I doubt it ever will. If they want it "gone" they'll have to both block it at the infrastructure level leading into the country and keep people from using internet infrastructure that isn't subject to these blocks from within the UK. That's... not really possible.
  • devjab 1y ago
    Ofcom is simply doing their job. I doubt they care about the users of 4chan. They will fine the company in accordance to UK law. Then if the company does not comply Ofcom will target their advertisers and it's Japanese owner who lives in France as well as having UK ISPs block 4chan. I can't think of any reason as to why France wouldn't work with UK authorities on this. Contrary to HN and other USA tech forums might think, this will likely be recieved favorable by the the UK public.
    • chmod775 1y ago
      For France to be legally able to give a shit Ofcom would need to go to court in the UK, pierce the corporate veil, and receive a final judgment against the owner of 4chan. Only then would they have some routes to petition French authorities for assistance. There's no agreement between the UK and France that would require or even permit French authorities to enforce fines by a some random UK entity willy-nilly.
• ekjhgkejhgk 1y ago
  I hate the Ofcom and the clowns that pass for British government. But I can see how this argument would make sense in the retarded mind of a lawyer. The first amendment doesn't give people rights: people already have those rights. Instead, the first amendment constrains the power of the US government to infringe upon those rights. It doesn't constrain the power of any other government.
  • thinkingtoilet 1y ago
    >The first amendment doesn't give people rights: people already have those rights. Says who? Prove it. Go to Russia and say something bad about the government and see how well this right you think you magically get holds up.
    • icepat 1y ago
      Regardless of if you agree with the US Constitution's perspective on self-evident rights, your point here does not negate what they said, simply indicates that the Russian government is not constrained in the same way the US government is.
    • seanw444 1y ago
      Infringement on a right doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The perspective with which we look at rights vs. privileges matters in a society, so it's not just semantics.
    • smlavine 1y ago
      Says God, would say the framers.
    • nairboon 1y ago
      Says the amendment: "Congress shall make no law...." https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ Why would an US constitution amendment have any effect in Russia?
    • ekjhgkejhgk 1y ago
• whimsicalism 1y ago
  I think that because the UK speaks english, they’ve come to believe they somehow have similar levels of extraterritorial power as the US. Just a general symptom of way too many people consuming US media/political content.
  • hexbin010 1y ago
    That hyperbole is about the scale of the US military budget. The UK is nowhere close to the US in terms of its belief in "extraterritorial power". You are taking one instance and wildly just making things up
    • whimsicalism 1y ago
      Doing business in the US is existential for most multinationals, so they do have extraterritorial reach - hence the US taxation system, US banking regulatory system, WTO, etc. Not so for the UK, especially post-brexit.
    • pessimizer 1y ago
      The difference, of course, is that the US actually has extraterritorial power. The idea that you would compare the UK's perception of their power to the US's perception of its power seems to be the kind of mistake the person you're replying to is referring to. Standing next the the US when it does things (or rather to the left and two steps behind the US) is not being like the US. https://youtu.be/lJatJ-Hi2_s?t=66 https://youtu.be/lJatJ-Hi2_s?t=66 more recent: https://youtu.be/Hyn_VHtSU48?t=35 https://youtu.be/Hyn_VHtSU48?t=35
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  • lawlessone 1y ago
    They probably made the mistake of assuming they had a reciprocal relationship. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/us-visa-policy-targets-foreign-nationals-who-censor-americans-state-dept-2025-05-28/ https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/us-visa-polic...
• xbar 1y ago
  Cheers, UK.
• throw7 1y ago
  If the UK is serious, they could ban entry to the 4chan owner(s) or even arrest them upon entry, so it's not something to just ignore or laugh off.
  • therein 1y ago
    Oh no, not being able to visit UK must be the worst punishment of all. They'll live their lives without being able to see Luton. What kind of life is that.
    • NoiseBert69 1y ago
      Might up ending a big problem if your flight has to diverge to UK.
      • jeroenhd 1y ago
        And let's not forget governments all over the world will call in fake bomb threats to force planes to land to arrest passengers. And with a bit of effort, the UK could call on friendly countries for extradition (such as Canada). They'll have to convince the judge that the crime is bad enough for extradition, but I'm sure they can come up with something. It all depends on how much the UK really cares. In practice, this is probably just a big act by Ofcom so they can say "we've tried everything, we'll have to go for a full ISP-level block as a last resort".
    • baobabKoodaa 1y ago
      Some of us have relatives in the UK.
      • aydyn 1y ago
        Im sorry.
  • Maxious 1y ago
    Ofcomm hasn't been able to identify the owners of the delaware LLC, that's why they attach a screenshot of the CAPITOL SERVICES, INC website. Publically available databases suggest 4chan executives include John Cena, Evan Essence and Norton Antivenom.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• johndhi 1y ago
  I'd think it would be allowed for UK to: 1. Tell 4chan or its registrar l to take down .co.uk urls (maybe?) 2. Tell UK ISPs to ban UK visitors from viewing 4chan
  • i_am_jl 1y ago
    They can, but they have to ask a court to enforce any sort of block. I imagine that's coming soon.
    • lawlessone 1y ago
      Now that you mention it, that's probably why they sent this letter. They know it's pointless but they want a paper trail to show they tried to find other solutions before requesting a block.
      • rbanffy 1y ago
        It's entirely up to 4chan to voluntarily comply and avoid any further consequences.
        • lawlessone 1y ago
          yeah but it's 4chan, they won't, the biggest consequence is they get blocked in the UK. And the kind of people that go there will be more than savvy enough tto use a VPN
  • themafia 1y ago
    > Tell UK ISPs to ban UK visitors from viewing 4chan Too bad the UK public can't effectively tell Ofcom off.
• riazrizvi 1y ago
  More odious nannying by silly civil servants. If Britain is to restore cultural leadership it needs to move policy away from this horrible trend of policing what people say and think, and focus its energy on better policing what people do.
  • Razengan 1y ago
    Put anyone in charge of any space and they'll want to control what people say and think there. Hell look at HN and literally anywhere. Everybody has their own "ideal" world. I for instance don't want anybody talking shit about anime or video games ever.
    • bawolff 1y ago
      Well yes, because those who don't quickly lose users due to bad signal-noise ratio When was the last time anyone visited an unmoderated usenet group?
      • cft 1y ago
        4chan is well, moderated, but it's outlived Facebook with real names.
      • throwaway48476 1y ago
        Did the government ever moderate usenet?
      • Razengan 1y ago
        Frankly, LLMs with transparent prompts, as well as user-side filters based on LLM prompts (e.g. "Don't show me comment threads talking shit about Attack on Titan") could do a better and more "fair" job than meat-based moderators now. They won't have personal biases, don't need to sleep (ending the infamous "mods are asleep, post xxx" waves), their prompts would be visible to everyone, and there could be ways for the users themselves to update the space's rules/prompts.
        • 1y ago
• phendrenad2 1y ago
  Ofcom is lucky that their threats are hollow. They're like the little dog protected by a fence taunting the much larger dog from their safe position.
• qwertyuiop_ 1y ago
  We settled this in 1776. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
• cosmicgadget 1y ago
  From the attorney's post: > The infinite character of that power was most famously summed up by English lawyer Sir Ivor Jennings, who once said that “if Parliament enacts that smoking in the streets of Paris is an offence, then it is an offence”. This line is taught to every first-year English law student. Initially this seems like disrespect for another country's sovereignty. But really the crucial thing is: > We explained to the UK that the Online Safety Act had a snowball’s chance in hell of being enforced in the United States Ofcom has to go through the motions of telling 4chan they can't smoke in Paris because of the (very on-brand) nanny law.
  • PaulRobinson 1y ago
    Not quite. Ofcom in their reply make their point clear: "The [Online Safety] Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom [...]" They are stating that companies operating in the UK and providing services to UK individuals, are required to conform with UK regulations in relation to those services, under UK law. As an American business, you can choose to ignore that, but that has consequences if any of your board of directors ever sets foot in the UK. The US does this, and US lawyers understand this. If I open an online poker and sports bookmaking site in the UK (where such sites are completely legal), and take business from all over the United States thereby breaking federal law, I can expect to be met at the plane door the next time I take a shopping trip to NYC. Arguing that my servers and my business are located in the UK is not going to impress the federal judge I'd appear in front of in the morning. Stating the US laws against my activities have a snowball's chance in hell of being enforced in the UK is surely going to risk me being charged with contempt. The Online Safety Act is ridiculous on many levels, but in the same way that Google does certain things in relation to Tiananmen Square searches in China, and every tech company engages in regulatory alignment for the entire Middle East, the UK has asked that US companies do certain things in the jurisdiction of the UK. I'd argue, less harmful and egregious things in some respects. Should the UK do this? No, probably not. I think it will just make VPN software vendors richer, and UK citizens - particularly children - barely any safer. Are Ofcom claiming jurisdiction in the US? No, they're claiming jurisdiction in the UK. Which, I hasten to add they are legally required to do by the Online Safety Act, by the government they are an agency of. If they didn't, the government would literally be breaking its own law. TIL that 4chan's lawyer is about as grown up, mature and able to engage in critical thinking about the law as the people who post on his client's site.
• tamimio 1y ago
  From https://prestonbyrne.com/2025/10/16/the-ofcom-files/ https://prestonbyrne.com/2025/10/16/the-ofcom-files/ > consistent with the UK legal doctrine known as parliamentary supremacy, which holds that the UK Parliament has theoretically unlimited power This is also true in Canada for the most part, while in theory with the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as part of the Constitution Act, 1982. This Act prescribes that “the Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada” (s.52), Thus constitutional supremacy replaced Parliamentary supremacy in Canada, in reality, the parliament can invoke s. 33 of the Charter, the notwithstanding clause, allows Parliament and the provincial legislatures to override certain provisions of the Charter, Canadian legislatures are still partially supreme. Which means the law can stand even if it violates those rights. This clause, which can only be used for a five-year term that is renewable, applies to specific sections of the Charter, including fundamental freedoms, legal rights, and equality rights, but not democratic, mobility, or Aboriginal rights.
• fair_enough 1y ago
  It seems the once "Great" Britain cannot let go of its grandiose delusions of ruling over and "civilizing" the entire known world. I've always held onto the suspicion that the distinction between left-wing and right-wing social views is more aesthetic than philosophical. All you have to do is tell a leftist "no", and they turn into everything they hate about their parents.
  • phendrenad2 1y ago
    I don't think the psychology here is one of British world supremacy. I think it's one of moral supremacy where liberals in power think that laws must be subservient to the "greater good". This is pretty common in modern politics actually. People don't understand that government must operate on rule of law, and laws have tradeoffs. A law that is useful to take down mafia might also be misused to take down protesters. As such making laws is much more complex than taking a moral stand. But people would rather morally grandstand than wade into this complexity.
• 833 1y ago
  Ofcom said this four days ago: > "Services who choose to restrict access rather than protect UK users remain on our watchlist" How does withdrawing service from UK users not "protect UK users"? How does age verifying UK IPs provide more protection than withdrawing the service entirely? It is about power and control, and nothing else.
  • maffyoo 1y ago
    what happens if access is unrestricted from UK users and the content becomes available again. Reads to me that they will monitor sites to ensure this doesn't happen. Surely logical..
  • FMecha 1y ago
    "Comply with our laws, or cease to exist".
• tycho-newman 1y ago
  Parliament can make any law.
• flumpcakes 1y ago
  I think the premise of this is simple, and a lot of people seem to not be understanding this... The UK can make a law and apply it however they see fit. 4Chan is providing a service to UK people (a website you can access) and is not implementing the law. Ultimately the UK cannot enforce this law until money destined to/from 4Chan passes through the UK or people associated with the site visit UK territories. In practicality this law for the most part will just mean either websites block the UK or UK ISPs are forced to block websites. But this law was designed for the websites and platforms that will not be willing to do that as they make money off of UK citizens, such as Amazon/Facebook/Youtube/etc. If a website blocks UK users then the law doesn't apply as it is only concerned with protecting UK citizens. If a foreign company was shipping drugs or guns to UK children, or your choice of obvious contraband, then why wouldn't it have the power to hold that entity accountable? This is how it has always worked and I am not seeing why this is a problem just because it's in the digital space.
  • HDThoreaun 1y ago
    > why wouldn't it have the power to hold that entity accountable? Literally because the entity is not under the jurisdiction of the UK. The UK can force domestic companies to block the website but they cant force the website itself to do anything. The claims of fines against 4chan are therefore nonsensical. Probably just part of the legal proceedings prior to blocking the site I guess but still strange to see.
    • flumpcakes 1y ago
      It does have 'jurisdiction' because it applies to the citizens: it is offering a service to UK citizens. If I had a website operated outside of the US, where you can download US citizens private medical records and phone conversations, I would be liable to breaking US law. If you do not want to be held accountable to a regions laws, then you do not offer a service to or deal with data that relates to that regions citizens. I don't think this is a hard concept to grasp. Jurisdiction does not imply enforceability. There are laws from your country that you can break while not even being in that country and be held accountable.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• globalnode 1y ago
  I wish there was a mandatory 4 yr degree for prospective politicians whose syllabus was designed by the UN or something.
• drexlspivey 1y ago
  "Your honor, my client does not recognize the authority of this tribunal" -- Judgment At Nuremberg (1961)
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• bparsons 1y ago
  The UK law is stupid, but they have every right to regulate content in their own country. Just because a business operates in another country does not release it from obligations in other countries where they operate. 4chan, like any company is free to withdraw their business if they do not agree with the laws there. This is how every law works in every country for every type of business.
• gorgoiler 1y ago
  alecmuffett is spot on here and I am grateful to him for making noise about this. The Online Safety Act is a mere prelude to the real goal: building on 20 years of CleanFeed to implement a central, government controlled firewall. The risks of such technology are grave. It is hard enough, for example, running a distributed national police service while keeping a lid on corruption, miscarriages of justice, and incompetence. Willfully using technology to scale up human effects will risk amplifying bad actors to a national scale.
• hexbin010 1y ago
  What's funny is that behind much of the vitriol against Ofcom and the UK Parliament from American citizens is the USA's legal concept of Free Speech. Many Americans believe absolutely in Free Speech – their exact version of it, as has been upheld by the courts of the USA. And they believe firmly they have the right to it worldwide. (And many also believe in the USA's moral right to spread its concept of Free Speech worldwide.) If people were honest, they would admit that they are aghast at this attack on what they perceive their right to Free Speech wherever they are in the world. (And of course, slapping the UK down any chance it can get because of history – another fine example of the bullying, domineering and self-righteous behaviour of the USA that the world constantly has to put up with.) I really do hope the hypocrisy is obvious to the many fine and educated people here.
• thih9 1y ago
  > The kids already know how to use VPNs to circumvent firewalls Vpn is not always a solution, at least in my experience (nordvpn). I haven’t tried 4chan, but e.g. reddit rejects anonymous vpn traffic (shows an error message, forces login); streaming platforms also often don’t work.
  • FMecha 1y ago
    4chan has a rule banning use of proxies/VPNs and enforces this with IP range bans.
• YPPH 1y ago
  The United States frequently asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction. They were chasing Assange even when he hadn't stepped foot in their country.
• strideashort 1y ago
  [dead]
• niemandhier 1y ago
  Going after 4chan is brilliant: No government is going to intervene on 4chans behalf, but dealing with 4chan might create a legal precedent.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • phendrenad2 1y ago
    They don't need intervention, the law is clear. Short of sending the Royal Marines to do a Zero Dark Thirty on 4chan headquarters, they have nothing they can do.
• SG- 1y ago
  the same is starting to happen with porn in many US states now.
• Lio 1y ago
  > From my perspective more damage has been wrought to British culture by the Disneyification of Winnie-the-Pooh (big fan of EH Shephard here) than by 4Chan. Here here! None of what Labour are doing makes sense to me from a "tHinK oF tHE cHilDreN!!" perspective because it's so easy to get round with a VPN. It's far more plausible, to me anyway, that's it's really a push to remove anonymity for online activity. The chances they eventually enforce the usage of their new Digital ID as the sole form of acceptable age verification in the UK seem pretty high.
• koliber 1y ago
  > The [Online Safety] Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom And so they should, within the borders of the UK. It's illegal to own unlicensed firearms in the UK. In the US, it is legal. UK authorities can prevent ownership of firearms in the UK via penalties, prevent firms from selling firearms in the UK, and set up import controls to prevent people from importing guns bought abroad. They cannot prevent foreign companies from selling firearms abroad. Ofcom can institute penalties for UK consumers who access illegal content, prevent firms from providing such content on UK soil, and put up firewalls to prevent people from digitally importing such content into the UK. They cannot prevent foreign companies from providing such content. Ofcom is being lazy and is trying to offload the responsibility to foreign firms. Safety and liberty are often at odds. Let the UK decide the balance for their citizens and let their citizens bear the benefits and costs of implementing the measures.
  • flumpcakes 1y ago
    > and set up import controls to prevent people from importing guns bought abroad. In this example 4chan is 'importing' it's content to the UK. I agree though, Ofcom should just go straight to banning these websites that won't comply, rather than this silly and pointless song and dance. Ultimately that's the only real enforcement tool they have. For certain websites that will be enough (Facebook, etc.) for them to follow whatever law for the regions they want to be accessible in.
    • ghusto 1y ago
      > 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.
      • rbanffy 1y ago
        > 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.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• exasperaited 1y ago
  You'll forgive us if we take American protestations about freedom of speech with a pinch of salt for a while, I hope. Because the time is fast coming when countries around the world will have to start banning regime-aligned US businesses from operating in their borders full stop; protecting children is going to look like a quaint concern.
• ghusto 1y ago
  Many comments here are on the premise that 4chan is "operating in"/"providing services in"/"broadcasting in" the UK, or similar. As I understand it, _the UK_ is the one performing the importing of this content (through the backbones). 4chan is involved at no part of that pipeline other than connecting their servers to the Internet. There are two ways in which a country could control content: 1. Through a governing body capable of regulating global content, like an Internet UN (with actual power) 2. Banning content locally via (broken) technical means The UK is pretending that there's a third option: Telling other country's they have to abide by UK law.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]