8 ms·

> The Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this expressly includes conducting in

by 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.
  - beardyw 1y ago
    Yes if the Parisian tabaconist sells in the UK. What happens in France is a French concern.
    - jojobas 1y ago
      No, more like the Parisian tobacconist had the audacity to sell tobacco to some Brits without asking Ofcom.
      - tpoacher 1y ago
        yes, where said Brits were in Britain and the tobacco was shipped there.
        Palmik 1y ago
        No, the tobacco was being served from France, the Brits used British pidgeon carriers to bring the tobacco to Britain.
    - ibejoeb 1y ago
      Not exactly. It's like if a brit goes to paris to buy cigarettes, the UK is stating that it's the tabac's job to refuse the transaction. They can say whatever they want, but the UK can't conduct an extra-territorial police action in france. They can bar subject from traveling to france instead. The onus is on the UK.
      - foobarian 1y ago
        Time to stand up Hadrian's Firewall!
jojobas 1y ago
The concern is they decide a site non-compliant, can't do shit about it in absence of British presence, then go after Britons accessing the site. Kiwifarms stopped serving UK IPs, not because of fear of enforcement but rather because they don't anyone British jailed. The UK landing page straight up says 'use Tor'.
- littlestymaar 1y ago
  > Kiwifarms stopped serving UK IPs, not because of fear of enforcement That's exactly what anyone wanting to save face would say though. > they don't anyone British jailed. The UK landing page straight up says 'use Tor'. There's a contradiction here: if you want to protect British citizens from being jailed for accessing a website then you should tell them not to use your website, not “use an alternative way to connect", because that will still get people to jail if they get caught by other means (I don't think you can, in fact be jailed for accessing a website in the UK in the first place).
  - jojobas 1y ago
    [dead]
- cft 1y ago
  Can probably arrest the founder in Heathrow, like Durov's arrest in France.
CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
> The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect It also continues like this: > This does not mean that the Act extends to all use of in-scope services globally. […] “The duties extend only to the design, operation and use of the service in the UK and, for duties expressed to apply in relation to ‘users’, as it affects the UK users of the service” Wouldn't this mean that the Act only applies to services explicitly design/targeting UK users/visitors? So if you're building a general service for no particular residents/citizens, the Act doesn't apply to you? Or am I misunderstanding something?
- Hamuko 1y ago
  >Wouldn't this mean that the Act only applies to services explicitly design/targeting UK users/visitors? Clearly not considering that there's nothing in 4chan that would make it explicitly targeted towards the UK. Unless Ofcom is saying something and doing the opposite.
  - piker 1y ago
    4chan.co.uk value decimated by this analysis
    - yupyupyups 1y ago
      Oh no!
  - mikkupikku 1y ago
    4chan does have very minor explicit support for UK users; on some boards it puts a UK flag on their post (as it does with all other countries and territories.) It could perhaps be argued that this constitutes the site being consciously designed with UK users in mind. Hardly matters though, there's nothing the UK can do about it. They aren't a superpower anymore and it's time for them to realize it.
    - jagged-chisel 1y ago
      I am not a 4chan user. How is this flag assigned? Automatically by 4chan based on some criteria? Or chosen at will by the user? Presumably if the latter, one may express their support of the flag of their choice; or indicate their heritage; or any number of other reasons. If the former, and considering the existence of a .uk TLD, they probably are considered to be “targeting” that market.
ivan_gammel 1y ago
Look at this page: https://www.4chan.org/advertise https://www.4chan.org/advertise It explicitly says that 7% of their users are coming from UK. If UK blocks them, they will loose noticeable part of advertising revenue. If there was no money at stake, they could just ignore Ofcom and sleep well. But they appear to be very agitated about the fact that they may loose their second biggest market. Honestly, I don’t understand anyone on 4chan side here: they are de facto in UK jurisdiction because they earn money from that user base, so either they comply or they leave. All of this freedom-of-speech and US lawsuit hype is just a distraction circus.
- array_key_first 1y ago
  Comply, leave, or fight the law if you think it's stupid. Lots of laws are stupid. If you think they're stupid, you're allowed to try to fight them.
  - lazide 1y ago
    Well, you’re allowed to try to fight them in some places, some of the time - with often severe consequences if you don’t win.
  - ivan_gammel 1y ago
    Yes, sure, they can fight the law - in UK. It’s not what they are doing.
  - vintermann 1y ago
    If you think foreign laws directly targeting you are stupid, not only do you have few ways of fighting them, trying to fight them might often be criminalized as well ("foreign interference" laws etc.)
- FabCH 1y ago
  Note, they don’t earn money from users. They earn money from advertisers. This is important because if it was advertisers, it would be much easier for UK to have actual power over them, since the UK business actually would be under UK jurisdiction.
topspin 1y ago
> It's just that this... legal authority... isn't quite enforceable outside the UK jurisdiction. That appears to be the widely held understanding in this particular case. I'm not so sure. This isn't a strictly black letter law matter. It probably should be, and I'd prefer that it was, but I see political angles to this. Right now, it is improbable that Trump's DOJ has any interest in doing Ofcom's bidding in the US for UK "online safety" violations, real or imagined. But a world where the US DOJ might does exist. We're the political vectors aligned differently; say, for example, Ofcom was pursuing 4chan for "supporting" ISIS in the UK, I think few people would be surprised learn that Trump's DOJ was eager to "investigate," and perhaps synthesize some indictable offenses, and perhaps even extradite. Have we not seen, and are we not seeing now, ample examples of similar abuses of power? So I see much of the rhetoric, and also this lawyer's flippancy, as naïve. Given the optimal set of office holders and sufficient moral panic over some matter, Ofcom et al. could very well have real leverage in the US.
- hunterpayne 1y ago
  Sure, that would require the Democrats win an election first. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Its not like Trump is the most inspiring candidate. When you lose 2 out of 3 to him, perhaps time to take a long look in the mirror. But no, the dems will probably run someone like AOC next time and lose badly. Even worse, once 2030 comes around there is a new census. This matters because enough people have moved from blue to red states that Republicans will no longer have to win any swing states to win both the House and POTUS. Unless something dramatic changes, like say the Dems run a southern governor instead of a coastal progressive, then we are looking at quite a while before we have to worry about that. PS Don't yell at me about this, I'm just explaining the situation.
  - topspin 1y ago
    > Unless something dramatic changes Dramatic things happen with regularity. Wars, viruses, economic calamities... there is no predicting any of it. For all you or I know 4 years from now the (D)s will own everything. Maybe then Ofcom gets a hearing. Maybe Ofcom doesn't exist any longer. This misses the point. The point is that the hubris exhibited here, in this forum, and also by this lawyer, behaving as though there is some perpetual immunity in effect, is naïve. It is entirely plausible that some foreign regulator with intentions that happen to align well with the prerogatives of prevailing office holders right now or at any point in the future could have have powerful leverage in the US.
rbanffy 1y ago
It doesn't go nearly as far as US legislation such as the trade embargoes against Cuba, Iran, or Venezuela. In that the US effectively harms any company that does business with a sanctioned country by sanctioning the company in the US. By the same logic, the UK could sanction any company that does business with 4chan and prevent it from doing any business in the UK.

by tasuki 1y ago

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.
- beardyw 1y ago
  Yes if the Parisian tabaconist sells in the UK. What happens in France is a French concern.
  - jojobas 1y ago
    No, more like the Parisian tobacconist had the audacity to sell tobacco to some Brits without asking Ofcom.
    - tpoacher 1y ago
      yes, where said Brits were in Britain and the tobacco was shipped there.
      - Palmik 1y ago
        No, the tobacco was being served from France, the Brits used British pidgeon carriers to bring the tobacco to Britain.
  - ibejoeb 1y ago
    Not exactly. It's like if a brit goes to paris to buy cigarettes, the UK is stating that it's the tabac's job to refuse the transaction. They can say whatever they want, but the UK can't conduct an extra-territorial police action in france. They can bar subject from traveling to france instead. The onus is on the UK.
    - foobarian 1y ago
      Time to stand up Hadrian's Firewall!

jojobas 1y ago

The concern is they decide a site non-compliant, can't do shit about it in absence of British presence, then go after Britons accessing the site. Kiwifarms stopped serving UK IPs, not because of fear of enforcement but rather because they don't anyone British jailed. The UK landing page straight up says 'use Tor'.

littlestymaar 1y ago
> Kiwifarms stopped serving UK IPs, not because of fear of enforcement That's exactly what anyone wanting to save face would say though. > they don't anyone British jailed. The UK landing page straight up says 'use Tor'. There's a contradiction here: if you want to protect British citizens from being jailed for accessing a website then you should tell them not to use your website, not “use an alternative way to connect", because that will still get people to jail if they get caught by other means (I don't think you can, in fact be jailed for accessing a website in the UK in the first place).
- jojobas 1y ago
  [dead]
cft 1y ago
Can probably arrest the founder in Heathrow, like Durov's arrest in France.

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago

> The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect It also continues like this: > This does not mean that the Act extends to all use of in-scope services globally. […] “The duties extend only to the design, operation and use of the service in the UK and, for duties expressed to apply in relation to ‘users’, as it affects the UK users of the service” Wouldn't this mean that the Act only applies to services explicitly design/targeting UK users/visitors? So if you're building a general service for no particular residents/citizens, the Act doesn't apply to you? Or am I misunderstanding something?

Hamuko 1y ago
>Wouldn't this mean that the Act only applies to services explicitly design/targeting UK users/visitors? Clearly not considering that there's nothing in 4chan that would make it explicitly targeted towards the UK. Unless Ofcom is saying something and doing the opposite.
- piker 1y ago
  4chan.co.uk value decimated by this analysis
  - yupyupyups 1y ago
    Oh no!
- mikkupikku 1y ago
  4chan does have very minor explicit support for UK users; on some boards it puts a UK flag on their post (as it does with all other countries and territories.) It could perhaps be argued that this constitutes the site being consciously designed with UK users in mind. Hardly matters though, there's nothing the UK can do about it. They aren't a superpower anymore and it's time for them to realize it.
  - jagged-chisel 1y ago
    I am not a 4chan user. How is this flag assigned? Automatically by 4chan based on some criteria? Or chosen at will by the user? Presumably if the latter, one may express their support of the flag of their choice; or indicate their heritage; or any number of other reasons. If the former, and considering the existence of a .uk TLD, they probably are considered to be “targeting” that market.

ivan_gammel 1y ago

Look at this page: https://www.4chan.org/advertise https://www.4chan.org/advertise It explicitly says that 7% of their users are coming from UK. If UK blocks them, they will loose noticeable part of advertising revenue. If there was no money at stake, they could just ignore Ofcom and sleep well. But they appear to be very agitated about the fact that they may loose their second biggest market. Honestly, I don’t understand anyone on 4chan side here: they are de facto in UK jurisdiction because they earn money from that user base, so either they comply or they leave. All of this freedom-of-speech and US lawsuit hype is just a distraction circus.

array_key_first 1y ago
Comply, leave, or fight the law if you think it's stupid. Lots of laws are stupid. If you think they're stupid, you're allowed to try to fight them.
- lazide 1y ago
  Well, you’re allowed to try to fight them in some places, some of the time - with often severe consequences if you don’t win.
- ivan_gammel 1y ago
  Yes, sure, they can fight the law - in UK. It’s not what they are doing.
- vintermann 1y ago
  If you think foreign laws directly targeting you are stupid, not only do you have few ways of fighting them, trying to fight them might often be criminalized as well ("foreign interference" laws etc.)
FabCH 1y ago
Note, they don’t earn money from users. They earn money from advertisers. This is important because if it was advertisers, it would be much easier for UK to have actual power over them, since the UK business actually would be under UK jurisdiction.

topspin 1y ago

> It's just that this... legal authority... isn't quite enforceable outside the UK jurisdiction. That appears to be the widely held understanding in this particular case. I'm not so sure. This isn't a strictly black letter law matter. It probably should be, and I'd prefer that it was, but I see political angles to this. Right now, it is improbable that Trump's DOJ has any interest in doing Ofcom's bidding in the US for UK "online safety" violations, real or imagined. But a world where the US DOJ might does exist. We're the political vectors aligned differently; say, for example, Ofcom was pursuing 4chan for "supporting" ISIS in the UK, I think few people would be surprised learn that Trump's DOJ was eager to "investigate," and perhaps synthesize some indictable offenses, and perhaps even extradite. Have we not seen, and are we not seeing now, ample examples of similar abuses of power? So I see much of the rhetoric, and also this lawyer's flippancy, as naïve. Given the optimal set of office holders and sufficient moral panic over some matter, Ofcom et al. could very well have real leverage in the US.

hunterpayne 1y ago
Sure, that would require the Democrats win an election first. I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Its not like Trump is the most inspiring candidate. When you lose 2 out of 3 to him, perhaps time to take a long look in the mirror. But no, the dems will probably run someone like AOC next time and lose badly. Even worse, once 2030 comes around there is a new census. This matters because enough people have moved from blue to red states that Republicans will no longer have to win any swing states to win both the House and POTUS. Unless something dramatic changes, like say the Dems run a southern governor instead of a coastal progressive, then we are looking at quite a while before we have to worry about that. PS Don't yell at me about this, I'm just explaining the situation.
- topspin 1y ago
  > Unless something dramatic changes Dramatic things happen with regularity. Wars, viruses, economic calamities... there is no predicting any of it. For all you or I know 4 years from now the (D)s will own everything. Maybe then Ofcom gets a hearing. Maybe Ofcom doesn't exist any longer. This misses the point. The point is that the hubris exhibited here, in this forum, and also by this lawyer, behaving as though there is some perpetual immunity in effect, is naïve. It is entirely plausible that some foreign regulator with intentions that happen to align well with the prerogatives of prevailing office holders right now or at any point in the future could have have powerful leverage in the US.

rbanffy 1y ago

It doesn't go nearly as far as US legislation such as the trade embargoes against Cuba, Iran, or Venezuela. In that the US effectively harms any company that does business with a sanctioned country by sanctioning the company in the US. By the same logic, the UK could sanction any company that does business with 4chan and prevent it from doing any business in the UK.