5 ms·

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 indi

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.

HDThoreaun 1y ago
4Chan operates out of the US. The UK can ban it if it wants but it can not unilaterally make demands of 4chan and expect courts to enforce them, because it has no jurisdiction over 4chan's activities.
- noAnswer 1y ago
  [flagged]
delfinom 1y ago
>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 board of directors for a private company is generally secret in the US. Only the "manager" aka president/CEO/whoever at the top is generally named publicly, as well as legal agent.
- nradov 1y ago
  I suspect that MI6 could find a US private company's directors names if they wanted to. We're not talking about nuclear launch codes here.
  - TheRealPomax 1y ago
    I suspect MI6 has much better things to do.
  - delfinom 1y ago
    Not really that easily? Generally, only the legal agent for the private company will know and the direct hires of the board i.e. the CEO/CTO/whoever they name up top. Sometimes board of directors can get named in court records but with the public records redacted. But outside of that? Not even the IRS knows unless the directors get compensation. MI6 would have to commit a few physical in person crimes to get any details out of any reasonably well run operation.
    - jandrese 1y ago
      Honestly I'm surprised to learn that 4chan has a board of directors.
      - immibis 1y ago
        In general, many things you think are grassroots are actually highly corporate astroturf.
      - DANmode 1y ago
sib 1y ago
Not quite. There are well-established legal mechanisms for Ofcom (or anyone) to try to engage legally with companies domiciled in the US and with no locus in the UK. Rather than using these mechanisms, they have tried to short-circuit the process by sending emails that have no legal force.
- james_in_the_uk 1y ago
  What “well established process” would apply here ?
  - lalaithion 1y ago
    The US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance treaty imposes obligations on Ofcom which they have not met, 4chan claims: “None of these actions constitutes valid service under the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, United States law or any other proper international legal process.” https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71209929/1/4chan-community-support-llc-v-uk-office-of-communications/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71209929/1/4chan-commun...
    - james_in_the_uk 1y ago
      MLAT applies only to a narrow set of legal procedures, essentially around criminal activity. I’m a lawyer but this is very specialist stuff. I’m not expert enough to opine on whether MLAT applies here but - simply judging by the quality of their respective legal work on display - I’m minded to believe that Ofcom knows what they are doing. OTOH 4chan’s rhetoric reeks of FUD.
      - intended 1y ago
        4chan is 100% FUD and is playing to the gallery. This is nerd sniping of a different sort. I’m guessing they are aiming to drum up American sentiment for their actions, and because its 4chan.
        1y ago
itake 1y ago
> Google does certain things in relation to Tiananmen Square searches in China What does Google do with Tiananmen square searches in China? I can't access google here at all.
- jandrese 1y ago
  Completely whitewashed, for all the good it does Google.
  - Thorrez 1y ago
    Do you have evidence that Google is filtering searches in China? Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on search.
    - jandrese 1y ago
      https://blogoscoped.com/archive/2009-06-04-n13.html https://blogoscoped.com/archive/2009-06-04-n13.html This is obviously pretty old, but as people have noted even this level of censorship didn't save Google in China.
      - Thorrez 1y ago
        In 2010 Google decided to stop censoring results in China. >We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-chin...
- flumpcakes 1y ago
  It is a mass killing event which the Chinese government pretends never happened and/or suppresses the information of. Phrases will be banned/filtered from all digital services in China relating to it. From Wikipedia: > The Tiananmen Square protests, known within China as the June Fourth Incident, were student-led demonstrations held in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China, lasting from 15 April to 4 June 1989. After weeks of unsuccessful attempts between the demonstrators and the Chinese government to find a peaceful resolution, the Chinese government deployed troops to occupy the square on the night of 3 June in what is referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre. The events are sometimes called the '89 Democracy Movement, the Tiananmen Square Incident, or the Tiananmen uprising. > Between 200 and 10,000 civilians were killed. The Red Cross states that around 2,600 died and the official Chinese government figure is 241 dead with 7,000 wounded. Amnesty International's estimates puts the number of deaths at several hundred to close to 1,000. As many as 10,000 people were estimated to have been arrested during the protests.
aftbit 1y ago
>every tech company engages in regulatory alignment for the entire Middle East Can someone expand on this a bit? I'm passingly familiar with the Chinese Google example (though I thought Google left the market rather than bend the knee?) but I know nearly nothing about the Middle East angle.
- thaumasiotes 1y ago
  > though I thought Google left the market rather than bend the knee? Not even close. They bent the knee first; they left afterwards.
  - nl 1y ago
    Not at all. They refused Chinese requests, left the market and closed offices. Still the gold standard for how US companies should have responded to Chinese censorship demands.
  - mda 1y ago
    Can you explain what do you mean?
    - thaumasiotes 1y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China > On 26 January 2006, Google launched its China-based google.cn search page, with results subject to censorship by the Chinese government. > In January 2010, Google announced that, in response to a Chinese-originated hacking attack on them and other US tech companies, they were no longer willing to censor searches in China and would pull out of the country completely if necessary. They never had a problem censoring their results. They claimed to pull out "in retaliation" for being hacked; realistically, they noticed that China didn't want them to succeed, and gave up on trying.
      - hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
        I think that's leaving out a lot of context that the "Controversies" section of that Wikipedia entry, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Controversies, better explains. First, in 2006, there was still a general belief I think that Western companies could profitably exist in China and be, if not a "force for good", than at least a force for slightly more openness. Google's options were either to not be in China at all, or to be in China and abide by their laws. So when they censored search results in the 2006-2010 time period, at least they told you they were doing it and that it was at the demands of Chinese authorities. I think it's a fair debate to have on either side whether this was a good thing, but I think it's a gross oversimplification to present that this was a simple black-and-white decision and that Google "never had a problem censoring their results."
wyager 1y ago
4chan is not "operating in the UK". They accept and respond to packets from the UK. If the UK government doesn't like this, they can block 4chan themselves.
- saxenaabhi 1y ago
  That's serving UK users while knowing that they aren't legally allowed to.
  - 4ndrewl 1y ago
    That's an interesting view. If I were to fly to the USA, purchase something that was illegal in my home country (and explicitly state I was going to take it back home), then took it back home - would the vendor be prosecuted?
    - YawningAngel 1y ago
      If they came to your home country, very possibly yes.
      - madeofpalk 1y ago
        ? Of course they wouldn't. Bartenders from other countries don't get locked up the moment they enter the US because they served alcohol to someone (a US citizen?) between 18 and 21. The US does not have jurisdiction over alcohol sales in other countries. In this scenario, what's more likely to be illegal is bringing the item into the country. It's difficult to make physical analogies to these types of internet laws. What makes them 'tricky' is how they are not physical.
        lazide 1y ago
        If they pack the alcohol up in a crate, and then ship it to the person after they make the order in person? Less clear yes? If the consumer goes to a place it is legal, and consumes it there without bringing any back, most people would say ‘meh’. Depending on the product. Hard drugs and sex work, being two common exceptions that some countries get more worked up about even traveling to ‘enjoy’ it. But ship it back (especially hard drugs or sex workers!), and almost all people get more concerned. The issue here is exactly why customs typically is a mandatory ‘gate’ for packages AND passengers entering a country. Similar, one could say, to a giant country level firewall? And why it is so lucrative for smugglers, which are defacto performing a type of arbitrage eh?
antonvs 1y ago
> TIL that 4chan's lawyer … …also suffers from delusions of grandeur, apparently: “Britain will be spinning hard to minimise the noise in the media.”
1oooqooq 1y ago
your comment seems very insightful but for the layman that I am it seems to ignore the source of international law reach. the usa does at lot of leg work to set up legal frameworks, suck as forcing transpacific "partnership", which enforce usa IP law overseas etc. they can enforce some things, like gambling and financial rules, and now intellectual property overseas because there are specific accords for those. every thing else, even hacking and spying, they must wait for the "criminal" to land on it's jurisdiction. why is this changing anything on all of that? also, your example of google/china would let this play out opposite of what you suggest: uk gov would please US law to keep doing business there. i fail to see the relevance on that also.
AnthonyMouse 1y ago
> 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. Countries do things like this when they're run by fools and they can do this because the fools have weapons and prisons. What good has it done the US? Can US patrons of offshore internet Bitcoin casinos no longer find them available? Not a chance. But then on top of being completely ineffective, it causes exactly what you're saying -- other fools in other countries want to treat the foolishness as precedent for doing it themselves. Which is why the people in the various countries should put a stop to all of it, before it spreads and they find themselves in a foreign prison because their flight had a layover in a country with a law they didn't know about. And countries themselves should retaliate like hell whenever anyone tries to do it to one of their citizens.
- kijin 1y ago
  That's the crucial part. Lots of people who do business in other countries either want to, or need to, visit the US from time to time. Whether for a "shopping trip to NYC", or for business reasons. That's why it's a big deal when the US wants somebody. On the other hand, I'm not particularly concerned about some tyrannical regime on the other side of the world that doesn't like the kind of content I have on my site. I'll postpone the research until I actually need to fly over their airspace or something. Where does the UK currently stand in the spectrum between "country that everyone wants to visit sometime" and "country that nobody gives a fuck about"? It used to be firmly on the former side, but it seems to be drifting away to the latter side every year.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    > That's the crucial part. Lots of people who do business in other countries either want to, or need to, visit the US from time to time. That doesn't do them any good because the set of people who never intend to set foot in the US is still vastly larger than the number of people required to set up an offshore internet casino. > On the other hand, I'm not particularly concerned about some tyrannical regime on the other side of the world that doesn't like the kind of content I have on my site. I'll postpone the research until I actually need to fly over their airspace or something. Most people can't even name every country, much less tell you what their laws are. And then you'll be breaking them without even knowing, and if that's regarded as a legitimate reason to incarcerate someone then what are you supposed to do? Suppose you have to choose between a layover in Egypt or in Hungary, do you even know which one's laws you might have broken at any point in your life? > Where does the UK currently stand in the spectrum between "country that everyone wants to visit sometime" and "country that nobody gives a fuck about"? It used to be firmly on the former side, but it seems to be drifting away to the latter side every year. The problem is if you get on a flight to Paris you have no control over whether it might get diverted to London.
ghusto 1y ago
> They are stating that companies operating in the UK They are not operating in the UK. ISPs in the UK have chosen to make content from the USA available in the uk (or more accurately, do nothing to prevent it being available)
- riffraff 1y ago
  but ISPs do not have the power to decide if something is infringing a rule or not. Thus Ofcom goes through the motions of telling 4Chan "hey I think you're not compliant" and if 4Chan says "lol, I'm not serving UK people" _then_ the UK authority will tell the ISPs to block it (and the will be on the hook if they don't).
  - account42 1y ago
    If I open a service to pick up stuff from whatever US shop a UK customer wants and then ship it to him would I not be on the hook for the contents? I don't think customs would be impressed with the argument that I don't have the power to inspect sealed packages handed over to me.
  - ghusto 1y ago
    There are clear laws now, so they do have the power to decide if something's against those laws. This is besides the point I'm making though. Ofcom should be telling the ISPs to take action, not the sites, since the ISPs are the "importers". They should never involve the site in the first place, and certainly not by trying send them empty threats of fines.
fsckboy 1y ago
>They are stating that companies operating in the UK and providing services to UK individuals did you mean to say "companies operating in the UK and(including) companies providing services to the UK"? because the way you wrote it, it would not apply to 4chan and what is not being mentioned by most commenters is, if the law is unenforceable on a US corp, what is the chance that an individual associated with 4chan Inc could find themselves individually arrested were they to set foot in a Commonwealth country or somesuch
- account42 1y ago
  I would expect the US not to ignore such an arrest so its really a question if going after 4chan this way is worth causing a diplomatic incident.
f33d5173 1y ago
The china point is interesting because it's false. Google doesn't censor their results in china. There was a five year period some 20 years ago where they did, but prior to that period, and after that period, they didn't. China still does business with google. This is because china understands that it is their own responsibility to censor their internet. If google is unwilling to do so, they are satisfied with blocking all google services in china. At a certain point in internet censorship, you exit the arena of sensible, free countries, where everybody can agree to get along and enforce each other's blocks, and enter the realm of a censorious authoritarian country that must constantly patch holes in their filters to protect their citizens from badthink. The UK has entered the second realm, but hasn't realized it yet. They see someone refusing to enforce their block for them as the ultimate scorn. In fact, it is what the vast majority of websites already do to china, iran, or any other similar country. Following regulations implies a willingness to play ball. When you no longer want to play along, you ignore the regulation instead.

HDThoreaun 1y ago

4Chan operates out of the US. The UK can ban it if it wants but it can not unilaterally make demands of 4chan and expect courts to enforce them, because it has no jurisdiction over 4chan's activities.

noAnswer 1y ago
[flagged]

delfinom 1y ago

>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 board of directors for a private company is generally secret in the US. Only the "manager" aka president/CEO/whoever at the top is generally named publicly, as well as legal agent.

nradov 1y ago
I suspect that MI6 could find a US private company's directors names if they wanted to. We're not talking about nuclear launch codes here.
- TheRealPomax 1y ago
  I suspect MI6 has much better things to do.
- delfinom 1y ago
  Not really that easily? Generally, only the legal agent for the private company will know and the direct hires of the board i.e. the CEO/CTO/whoever they name up top. Sometimes board of directors can get named in court records but with the public records redacted. But outside of that? Not even the IRS knows unless the directors get compensation. MI6 would have to commit a few physical in person crimes to get any details out of any reasonably well run operation.
  - jandrese 1y ago
    Honestly I'm surprised to learn that 4chan has a board of directors.
    - immibis 1y ago
      In general, many things you think are grassroots are actually highly corporate astroturf.
    - DANmode 1y ago

sib 1y ago

Not quite. There are well-established legal mechanisms for Ofcom (or anyone) to try to engage legally with companies domiciled in the US and with no locus in the UK. Rather than using these mechanisms, they have tried to short-circuit the process by sending emails that have no legal force.

james_in_the_uk 1y ago
What “well established process” would apply here ?
- lalaithion 1y ago
  The US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance treaty imposes obligations on Ofcom which they have not met, 4chan claims: “None of these actions constitutes valid service under the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, United States law or any other proper international legal process.” https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71209929/1/4chan-community-support-llc-v-uk-office-of-communications/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71209929/1/4chan-commun...
  - james_in_the_uk 1y ago
    MLAT applies only to a narrow set of legal procedures, essentially around criminal activity. I’m a lawyer but this is very specialist stuff. I’m not expert enough to opine on whether MLAT applies here but - simply judging by the quality of their respective legal work on display - I’m minded to believe that Ofcom knows what they are doing. OTOH 4chan’s rhetoric reeks of FUD.
    - intended 1y ago
      4chan is 100% FUD and is playing to the gallery. This is nerd sniping of a different sort. I’m guessing they are aiming to drum up American sentiment for their actions, and because its 4chan.
      - 1y ago

itake 1y ago

> Google does certain things in relation to Tiananmen Square searches in China What does Google do with Tiananmen square searches in China? I can't access google here at all.

jandrese 1y ago
Completely whitewashed, for all the good it does Google.
- Thorrez 1y ago
  Do you have evidence that Google is filtering searches in China? Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on search.
  - jandrese 1y ago
    https://blogoscoped.com/archive/2009-06-04-n13.html https://blogoscoped.com/archive/2009-06-04-n13.html This is obviously pretty old, but as people have noted even this level of censorship didn't save Google in China.
    - Thorrez 1y ago
      In 2010 Google decided to stop censoring results in China. >We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-chin...
flumpcakes 1y ago
It is a mass killing event which the Chinese government pretends never happened and/or suppresses the information of. Phrases will be banned/filtered from all digital services in China relating to it. From Wikipedia: > The Tiananmen Square protests, known within China as the June Fourth Incident, were student-led demonstrations held in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China, lasting from 15 April to 4 June 1989. After weeks of unsuccessful attempts between the demonstrators and the Chinese government to find a peaceful resolution, the Chinese government deployed troops to occupy the square on the night of 3 June in what is referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre. The events are sometimes called the '89 Democracy Movement, the Tiananmen Square Incident, or the Tiananmen uprising. > Between 200 and 10,000 civilians were killed. The Red Cross states that around 2,600 died and the official Chinese government figure is 241 dead with 7,000 wounded. Amnesty International's estimates puts the number of deaths at several hundred to close to 1,000. As many as 10,000 people were estimated to have been arrested during the protests.

aftbit 1y ago

>every tech company engages in regulatory alignment for the entire Middle East Can someone expand on this a bit? I'm passingly familiar with the Chinese Google example (though I thought Google left the market rather than bend the knee?) but I know nearly nothing about the Middle East angle.

thaumasiotes 1y ago
> though I thought Google left the market rather than bend the knee? Not even close. They bent the knee first; they left afterwards.
- nl 1y ago
  Not at all. They refused Chinese requests, left the market and closed offices. Still the gold standard for how US companies should have responded to Chinese censorship demands.
- mda 1y ago
  Can you explain what do you mean?
  - thaumasiotes 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China > On 26 January 2006, Google launched its China-based google.cn search page, with results subject to censorship by the Chinese government. > In January 2010, Google announced that, in response to a Chinese-originated hacking attack on them and other US tech companies, they were no longer willing to censor searches in China and would pull out of the country completely if necessary. They never had a problem censoring their results. They claimed to pull out "in retaliation" for being hacked; realistically, they noticed that China didn't want them to succeed, and gave up on trying.
    - hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
      I think that's leaving out a lot of context that the "Controversies" section of that Wikipedia entry, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Controversies, better explains. First, in 2006, there was still a general belief I think that Western companies could profitably exist in China and be, if not a "force for good", than at least a force for slightly more openness. Google's options were either to not be in China at all, or to be in China and abide by their laws. So when they censored search results in the 2006-2010 time period, at least they told you they were doing it and that it was at the demands of Chinese authorities. I think it's a fair debate to have on either side whether this was a good thing, but I think it's a gross oversimplification to present that this was a simple black-and-white decision and that Google "never had a problem censoring their results."

wyager 1y ago

4chan is not "operating in the UK". They accept and respond to packets from the UK. If the UK government doesn't like this, they can block 4chan themselves.

saxenaabhi 1y ago
That's serving UK users while knowing that they aren't legally allowed to.
- 4ndrewl 1y ago
  That's an interesting view. If I were to fly to the USA, purchase something that was illegal in my home country (and explicitly state I was going to take it back home), then took it back home - would the vendor be prosecuted?
  - YawningAngel 1y ago
    If they came to your home country, very possibly yes.
    - madeofpalk 1y ago
      ? Of course they wouldn't. Bartenders from other countries don't get locked up the moment they enter the US because they served alcohol to someone (a US citizen?) between 18 and 21. The US does not have jurisdiction over alcohol sales in other countries. In this scenario, what's more likely to be illegal is bringing the item into the country. It's difficult to make physical analogies to these types of internet laws. What makes them 'tricky' is how they are not physical.
      - lazide 1y ago
        If they pack the alcohol up in a crate, and then ship it to the person after they make the order in person? Less clear yes? If the consumer goes to a place it is legal, and consumes it there without bringing any back, most people would say ‘meh’. Depending on the product. Hard drugs and sex work, being two common exceptions that some countries get more worked up about even traveling to ‘enjoy’ it. But ship it back (especially hard drugs or sex workers!), and almost all people get more concerned. The issue here is exactly why customs typically is a mandatory ‘gate’ for packages AND passengers entering a country. Similar, one could say, to a giant country level firewall? And why it is so lucrative for smugglers, which are defacto performing a type of arbitrage eh?

antonvs 1y ago

> TIL that 4chan's lawyer … …also suffers from delusions of grandeur, apparently: “Britain will be spinning hard to minimise the noise in the media.”

1oooqooq 1y ago

your comment seems very insightful but for the layman that I am it seems to ignore the source of international law reach. the usa does at lot of leg work to set up legal frameworks, suck as forcing transpacific "partnership", which enforce usa IP law overseas etc. they can enforce some things, like gambling and financial rules, and now intellectual property overseas because there are specific accords for those. every thing else, even hacking and spying, they must wait for the "criminal" to land on it's jurisdiction. why is this changing anything on all of that? also, your example of google/china would let this play out opposite of what you suggest: uk gov would please US law to keep doing business there. i fail to see the relevance on that also.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

> 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. Countries do things like this when they're run by fools and they can do this because the fools have weapons and prisons. What good has it done the US? Can US patrons of offshore internet Bitcoin casinos no longer find them available? Not a chance. But then on top of being completely ineffective, it causes exactly what you're saying -- other fools in other countries want to treat the foolishness as precedent for doing it themselves. Which is why the people in the various countries should put a stop to all of it, before it spreads and they find themselves in a foreign prison because their flight had a layover in a country with a law they didn't know about. And countries themselves should retaliate like hell whenever anyone tries to do it to one of their citizens.

kijin 1y ago
That's the crucial part. Lots of people who do business in other countries either want to, or need to, visit the US from time to time. Whether for a "shopping trip to NYC", or for business reasons. That's why it's a big deal when the US wants somebody. On the other hand, I'm not particularly concerned about some tyrannical regime on the other side of the world that doesn't like the kind of content I have on my site. I'll postpone the research until I actually need to fly over their airspace or something. Where does the UK currently stand in the spectrum between "country that everyone wants to visit sometime" and "country that nobody gives a fuck about"? It used to be firmly on the former side, but it seems to be drifting away to the latter side every year.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  > That's the crucial part. Lots of people who do business in other countries either want to, or need to, visit the US from time to time. That doesn't do them any good because the set of people who never intend to set foot in the US is still vastly larger than the number of people required to set up an offshore internet casino. > On the other hand, I'm not particularly concerned about some tyrannical regime on the other side of the world that doesn't like the kind of content I have on my site. I'll postpone the research until I actually need to fly over their airspace or something. Most people can't even name every country, much less tell you what their laws are. And then you'll be breaking them without even knowing, and if that's regarded as a legitimate reason to incarcerate someone then what are you supposed to do? Suppose you have to choose between a layover in Egypt or in Hungary, do you even know which one's laws you might have broken at any point in your life? > Where does the UK currently stand in the spectrum between "country that everyone wants to visit sometime" and "country that nobody gives a fuck about"? It used to be firmly on the former side, but it seems to be drifting away to the latter side every year. The problem is if you get on a flight to Paris you have no control over whether it might get diverted to London.

ghusto 1y ago

> They are stating that companies operating in the UK They are not operating in the UK. ISPs in the UK have chosen to make content from the USA available in the uk (or more accurately, do nothing to prevent it being available)

riffraff 1y ago
but ISPs do not have the power to decide if something is infringing a rule or not. Thus Ofcom goes through the motions of telling 4Chan "hey I think you're not compliant" and if 4Chan says "lol, I'm not serving UK people" _then_ the UK authority will tell the ISPs to block it (and the will be on the hook if they don't).
- account42 1y ago
  If I open a service to pick up stuff from whatever US shop a UK customer wants and then ship it to him would I not be on the hook for the contents? I don't think customs would be impressed with the argument that I don't have the power to inspect sealed packages handed over to me.
- ghusto 1y ago
  There are clear laws now, so they do have the power to decide if something's against those laws. This is besides the point I'm making though. Ofcom should be telling the ISPs to take action, not the sites, since the ISPs are the "importers". They should never involve the site in the first place, and certainly not by trying send them empty threats of fines.

fsckboy 1y ago

>They are stating that companies operating in the UK and providing services to UK individuals did you mean to say "companies operating in the UK and(including) companies providing services to the UK"? because the way you wrote it, it would not apply to 4chan and what is not being mentioned by most commenters is, if the law is unenforceable on a US corp, what is the chance that an individual associated with 4chan Inc could find themselves individually arrested were they to set foot in a Commonwealth country or somesuch

account42 1y ago
I would expect the US not to ignore such an arrest so its really a question if going after 4chan this way is worth causing a diplomatic incident.

f33d5173 1y ago

The china point is interesting because it's false. Google doesn't censor their results in china. There was a five year period some 20 years ago where they did, but prior to that period, and after that period, they didn't. China still does business with google. This is because china understands that it is their own responsibility to censor their internet. If google is unwilling to do so, they are satisfied with blocking all google services in china. At a certain point in internet censorship, you exit the arena of sensible, free countries, where everybody can agree to get along and enforce each other's blocks, and enter the realm of a censorious authoritarian country that must constantly patch holes in their filters to protect their citizens from badthink. The UK has entered the second realm, but hasn't realized it yet. They see someone refusing to enforce their block for them as the ultimate scorn. In fact, it is what the vast majority of websites already do to china, iran, or any other similar country. Following regulations implies a willingness to play ball. When you no longer want to play along, you ignore the regulation instead.