4 ms·

Which doesn't sounds so absurd if you replace “tobacco” with “cocaine” and “Parisian” with “Colombian”.

iamnothere 1y ago
It still sounds absurd to me. Nations should not be in the business of passing laws that apply to extraterritorial actions of foreign citizens. I know that it happens, especially with the US, but IMHO it’s just not how things should work. This has become far too normalized due to decades of bad behavior by the US, and it’s going to come back to bite us as US power declines. Just wait until 30 years from now when you can’t safely visit anywhere in the far East because you made a subversive comment about China. Although I’m sure the same people will hypocritically wail and gnash their teeth about the laws made by those people, when of course our extraterritorial laws are just fine.
- lenerdenator 1y ago
  > This has become far too normalized due to decades of bad behavior by the US, and it’s going to come back to bite us as US power declines. This has been happening long before the US started doing it. If anything, it's normalized in the US because of the bad behavior prior to the US doing it. China's a great example. What does brutally crushing dissent internally and abroad without even a facade of a single care about human rights get you? Well, in their case, damn near superpower status. Been that way since at the very least Nixon's administration. The net effect was people started to wonder why we bother with the inefficiencies of "rights" and "privacy". The concern for human rights shown since the end of WWII in the West (particularly the US) is an exception, not norm, in history.
  - yupyupyups 1y ago
    >The net effect was people started to wonder why we bother with the inefficiencies of "rights" and "privacy". Who are these people you're talking about, tankies, faschists? The Chinese have the government that they deserve. They screw each other over, and what goes around comes around. It's a cautionary tale, not an example to follow.
- 8note 1y ago
  The end punishment will still end up being that 4chan is not allowed to do business in the UK. If they want their website to work in the UK, they should follow UK law.
  - iamnothere 1y ago
    Then the UK should just step up and pass a censorship law, not do this song-and-dance about fining businesses outside their control. If this kind of BS becomes too common then running a small internet business will become impossible. Even if you don’t do business in a country, you will have to consider whether or not they might consider you in violation of some obscure law and then consider whether or not that country has the leverage to impact your business or even your own personal safety. It’s utterly ridiculous. This would spell the end of the global internet, except for megacorps. It’s already a tough business environment as it is. The status quo is that some countries have these laws, but they are generally ignored unless you’re a citizen, you manage to do something geopolitically significant, or you get involved in transnational crime rings. This seems acceptable to me. If countries don’t like the free internet, then ban it so we can all see what you’re really up to.
CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
Still sounds absurd to me. > UK bans selling cocaine in the UK and tries going after a Colombian cocaine dealer in Columbia.
- kemayo 1y ago
  I'll neutrally note that this is why Trump is blowing up Venezuelan fishing boats currently: https://www.npr.org/2025/10/15/nx-s1-5575699/why-is-the-trump-administration-blowing-up-venezuelan-boats https://www.npr.org/2025/10/15/nx-s1-5575699/why-is-the-trum... (I'll less-neutrally note that this is also absurd, and probably criminal.)
  - throwaway48476 1y ago
    They likely do not have a flag state and could be considered pirates. Fisherman dont have 100k worth of outboard motors either.
    - lesuorac 1y ago
      Which law allows the death penalty for allegedly transporting drugs? Shooting first and asking questions later is how we got into this mess of deporting us citizens.
      - Mountain_Skies 1y ago
        Sections 105 and 108 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea allows any country to go after drug smugglers in international waters but it does require that a court in that country approve of the action. It's certainly worth questioning if a court can issue a preemptive ruling on a proposed action against alleged drug smugglers. There's also the issue that Maritime Law is weird, convoluted, and probably sanctions most state actions if you dig around enough.
        mothballed 1y ago
        Both the US and Venezuela are non-parties to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
knorker 1y ago
It does if the attempted enforcement is sending a notice of a fine to Pablo Escobar. Ok then, thank you, I'll file that demand as appropriate. Now if the UK sends warships to the country, ok. Good luck with sending warships to invade the US.
madeofpalk 1y ago
What about marijunana? It's absurd for the UK government to try and go after a legal California weed store.
- littlestymaar 1y ago
  If the California stores ships to the UK, you can be certain that they will. And they'd be right to do so as a country has sovereignty over what is allowed or not in their country, not matter the country of origin of the seller.
  - account42 1y ago
    They have a right to stop the packages at the border. They have no right to go after the stores themselves and more importantly they have no power to do so unless the US helps them, which they would never do over a free speech issue.

It still sounds absurd to me. Nations should not be in the business of passing laws that apply to extraterritorial actions of foreign citizens. I know that it happens, especially with the US, but IMHO it’s just not how things should work. This has become far too normalized due to decades of bad behavior by the US, and it’s going to come back to bite us as US power declines. Just wait until 30 years from now when you can’t safely visit anywhere in the far East because you made a subversive comment about China. Although I’m sure the same people will hypocritically wail and gnash their teeth about the laws made by those people, when of course our extraterritorial laws are just fine.

lenerdenator 1y ago
> This has become far too normalized due to decades of bad behavior by the US, and it’s going to come back to bite us as US power declines. This has been happening long before the US started doing it. If anything, it's normalized in the US because of the bad behavior prior to the US doing it. China's a great example. What does brutally crushing dissent internally and abroad without even a facade of a single care about human rights get you? Well, in their case, damn near superpower status. Been that way since at the very least Nixon's administration. The net effect was people started to wonder why we bother with the inefficiencies of "rights" and "privacy". The concern for human rights shown since the end of WWII in the West (particularly the US) is an exception, not norm, in history.
- yupyupyups 1y ago
  >The net effect was people started to wonder why we bother with the inefficiencies of "rights" and "privacy". Who are these people you're talking about, tankies, faschists? The Chinese have the government that they deserve. They screw each other over, and what goes around comes around. It's a cautionary tale, not an example to follow.
8note 1y ago
The end punishment will still end up being that 4chan is not allowed to do business in the UK. If they want their website to work in the UK, they should follow UK law.
- iamnothere 1y ago
  Then the UK should just step up and pass a censorship law, not do this song-and-dance about fining businesses outside their control. If this kind of BS becomes too common then running a small internet business will become impossible. Even if you don’t do business in a country, you will have to consider whether or not they might consider you in violation of some obscure law and then consider whether or not that country has the leverage to impact your business or even your own personal safety. It’s utterly ridiculous. This would spell the end of the global internet, except for megacorps. It’s already a tough business environment as it is. The status quo is that some countries have these laws, but they are generally ignored unless you’re a citizen, you manage to do something geopolitically significant, or you get involved in transnational crime rings. This seems acceptable to me. If countries don’t like the free internet, then ban it so we can all see what you’re really up to.

CaptainOfCoit 1y ago

Still sounds absurd to me. > UK bans selling cocaine in the UK and tries going after a Colombian cocaine dealer in Columbia.

kemayo 1y ago
I'll neutrally note that this is why Trump is blowing up Venezuelan fishing boats currently: https://www.npr.org/2025/10/15/nx-s1-5575699/why-is-the-trump-administration-blowing-up-venezuelan-boats https://www.npr.org/2025/10/15/nx-s1-5575699/why-is-the-trum... (I'll less-neutrally note that this is also absurd, and probably criminal.)
- throwaway48476 1y ago
  They likely do not have a flag state and could be considered pirates. Fisherman dont have 100k worth of outboard motors either.
  - lesuorac 1y ago
    Which law allows the death penalty for allegedly transporting drugs? Shooting first and asking questions later is how we got into this mess of deporting us citizens.
    - Mountain_Skies 1y ago
      Sections 105 and 108 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea allows any country to go after drug smugglers in international waters but it does require that a court in that country approve of the action. It's certainly worth questioning if a court can issue a preemptive ruling on a proposed action against alleged drug smugglers. There's also the issue that Maritime Law is weird, convoluted, and probably sanctions most state actions if you dig around enough.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        Both the US and Venezuela are non-parties to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

knorker 1y ago

It does if the attempted enforcement is sending a notice of a fine to Pablo Escobar. Ok then, thank you, I'll file that demand as appropriate. Now if the UK sends warships to the country, ok. Good luck with sending warships to invade the US.

madeofpalk 1y ago

What about marijunana? It's absurd for the UK government to try and go after a legal California weed store.

littlestymaar 1y ago
If the California stores ships to the UK, you can be certain that they will. And they'd be right to do so as a country has sovereignty over what is allowed or not in their country, not matter the country of origin of the seller.
- account42 1y ago
  They have a right to stop the packages at the border. They have no right to go after the stores themselves and more importantly they have no power to do so unless the US helps them, which they would never do over a free speech issue.