5 ms·

> The [Online Safety] Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom And so they should, withi

> 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.
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      I certainly wouldn't. Let the UK block if they want to. At least the voters there will know who to be angry at.
      - rbanffy 1y ago
        Why would anyone sane be angry at not being able to access 4chan? Those people are already angry at so many things it would be hard to measure the change.
        Ferret7446 1y ago
        The only ones angry here are Ofcom/the UK government. Everyone else thinks this is stupid/hilarious.
    - estimator7292 1y ago
      I don't know if you know this, but when you put a website online there isn't a big switch that says "TURN ON TO SERVE TO UK" When a resource exists on the internet, it is available to everyone. That's how the internet works. There is no mechanism by which to exclude any given country. You can try to geolocate the IP for every individual visitor, but that's a ridiculous burden for website operators and it also doesn't even work. Ofcom is trying to censor the entire global internet. If they want to censor the UK internet, they have much, much better tools. They're trying to enforce extrajudicial law by way of threats and bullying instead of actually taking proactive steps to "protect" UK citizens from dangerous memes. Ofcom has the right to censor the internet within the UK. They do not have the right to an opinion about what private entities do in other countries.
      - rbanffy 1y ago
        > I don't know if you know this, but when you put a website online there isn't a big switch that says "TURN ON TO SERVE TO UK" No, but it's a relatively trivial setting to block IP ranges, especially for a service the size of 4chan. > You can try to geolocate the IP for every individual visitor, but that's a ridiculous burden for website operators and it also doesn't even work. It's not a ridiculous burden (the ranges are easy to obtain - I did it before) and it's not expected to be 100% effective against a dedicated user because proxies exist.
- DrewADesign 1y ago
  If I order something from AliExpress shipped from China, I’m importing it, and the vendor exporting it. They’re not importing it to me, and I’m not exporting it to myself. Same thing if I make a web request for content on a server overseas.
  - janc_ 1y ago
    Alibaba has warehouses & hubs in Europe (and I assume the US), where it first imports to its own subsidiary here, so this is somewhat debateable.
    - koliber 1y ago
      With Alibaba it gets complicated. There are things like duty free warehouses where things can be on US soil but legally have not yet been imported. But that does not apply in the UK. 4chan does not have servers or proxies in the UK. If it did, Ofcam can go after those local entities and I would not bat an eye.
    - DrewADesign 1y ago
      Ok- a transcontinental pizza order from a slice shop in Beijing, then. AliExpress’s logistics are obviously not relevant to the metaphor.
- koliber 1y ago
  4chan is exporting. The consumer is importing. That distinction matters.
  - dommer 1y ago
    Perhaps the terms import and export aren’t suitable for internet content? Perhaps new terms with legal implications are needed for internet age?
    - koliber 1y ago
      That might be the case. However, we should not invent new things where old things suffice. Maybe it is as simple as importing digital content, and all that is different in this case is the medium. It's already illegal to import DVDs that contain illegal content into the UK. The person or company that is doing the importing is on the hook. Apply that logic to the the internet medium and we're all set. As was mentioned in another thread, it is simpler to go after the companies abroad than to build out measures that would prevent such import. Those measures would probably take the form of some sort of firewalls. They would be noticeable to the British people, and the British people, being sensitive about their civil liberties, would not like that. It's easier for Ofcam to go after a couple bigger companies, impose no cost on the British public, and tramp national sovereignty into the ground a bit along the way.
potato3732842 1y ago
They're not being lazy. The political reality is that the people of the UK are mostly sick of this shit so harassing the sources (4chan and others) is gonna cause less pushback for the same results than fining people.
- koliber 1y ago
  We agree in essence. I just called the avoidance of dealing with the pushback laziness.
grafmax 1y ago
Strange that this is framed as a national sovereignty issue not an issue of UK government’s overwrought free speech repression and its utilization of corporate bullying to that end. This is exactly the thing we don’t want democratic governments to do - congeal with corporate power against their people. Appealing to legality when the laws are themselves unjust is not a defense. The online safety act is broad and vague and not in the interests of UK citizens, so sovereignty appeals are completely disingenuous here. When we talk about sovereignty what we are really referring to is the power of the UK government over its people and the subservience expected of entities like 4chan to that end. We see these exact same mechanisms in the US and that’s precisely why we should not manufacture rationalizations for this kind of policy - the societal decline as a result of this cynical trend is clear.
- rbanffy 1y ago
  > UK government’s overwrought free speech repression and its utilization of corporate bullying to that end. If the citizens of the UK wish to express discontent, they are free to vote for a different parliament so they enact different laws. We who live outside the UK have no say on their laws.
  - grafmax 1y ago
    The UK is much like the US in that democratic processes are co-opted and undermined by special interests to the point that governments engage in suppression of free speech and mass surveillance against their populations. (What’s unique to the UK is that it’s government is largely subservient to the US in the international dragnet.) We are all human and share the same human rights regardless of our nationality.
    - rbanffy 1y ago
      > The UK is much like the US in that democratic processes are co-opted and undermined by special interests A judge will not find this comment amusing, or a justification for breaking the law. You can, of course, engage in civil disobedience, but keep in mind it doesn't shield you from consequences.
rbanffy 1y ago
> They cannot prevent foreign companies from providing such content. Said companies often find it less burdensome to comply than the option of being outright blocked from the market. Brazil did that a couple times with a couple different companies. If a company wants to provide services to a given jurisdiction, it needs to comply with local regulations.
- adastra22 1y ago
  Fine. That’s not what’s going on here.
  - rbanffy 1y ago
    It's entirely up to 4chan whether it decides to comply or not.
    - macinjosh 1y ago
      No it’s not. Ofcom has no jurisdiction to make a US company do anything. The Internet is a global marketplace. If the UK wants to remove itself from this marketplace, like it did from the EU, it will need to do the blocking itself. But Ofcom knows what the government blocking access to information looks like and they don’t have the balls to do it.
      - rbanffy 1y ago
        It was done before. Brazil did that to WhatsApp and Twitter and both companies voluntarily complied with the court requests. Rumble remains blocked because it decided it wouldn't comply with the Brazilian court orders.
        adastra22 1y ago
        Those companies were operating in Brazil. They had income booked in Brazil that could be impounded. They had employees there and offices and had to comply with local laws. 4chan isn’t in the UK. 4chan doesn’t have UK employees or offices. 4chan doesn’t book income on the UK. 4chan didn’t have any thing to do with the UK at all. If this isn’t convincing, consider this: legally what is the difference from Afghanistan requesting anything not legally in compliance with Taliban’s laws be restricted? Would you support that? Legally that is what is going on here.

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.
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    I certainly wouldn't. Let the UK block if they want to. At least the voters there will know who to be angry at.
    - rbanffy 1y ago
      Why would anyone sane be angry at not being able to access 4chan? Those people are already angry at so many things it would be hard to measure the change.
      - Ferret7446 1y ago
        The only ones angry here are Ofcom/the UK government. Everyone else thinks this is stupid/hilarious.
  - estimator7292 1y ago
    I don't know if you know this, but when you put a website online there isn't a big switch that says "TURN ON TO SERVE TO UK" When a resource exists on the internet, it is available to everyone. That's how the internet works. There is no mechanism by which to exclude any given country. You can try to geolocate the IP for every individual visitor, but that's a ridiculous burden for website operators and it also doesn't even work. Ofcom is trying to censor the entire global internet. If they want to censor the UK internet, they have much, much better tools. They're trying to enforce extrajudicial law by way of threats and bullying instead of actually taking proactive steps to "protect" UK citizens from dangerous memes. Ofcom has the right to censor the internet within the UK. They do not have the right to an opinion about what private entities do in other countries.
    - rbanffy 1y ago
      > I don't know if you know this, but when you put a website online there isn't a big switch that says "TURN ON TO SERVE TO UK" No, but it's a relatively trivial setting to block IP ranges, especially for a service the size of 4chan. > You can try to geolocate the IP for every individual visitor, but that's a ridiculous burden for website operators and it also doesn't even work. It's not a ridiculous burden (the ranges are easy to obtain - I did it before) and it's not expected to be 100% effective against a dedicated user because proxies exist.
DrewADesign 1y ago
If I order something from AliExpress shipped from China, I’m importing it, and the vendor exporting it. They’re not importing it to me, and I’m not exporting it to myself. Same thing if I make a web request for content on a server overseas.
- janc_ 1y ago
  Alibaba has warehouses & hubs in Europe (and I assume the US), where it first imports to its own subsidiary here, so this is somewhat debateable.
  - koliber 1y ago
    With Alibaba it gets complicated. There are things like duty free warehouses where things can be on US soil but legally have not yet been imported. But that does not apply in the UK. 4chan does not have servers or proxies in the UK. If it did, Ofcam can go after those local entities and I would not bat an eye.
  - DrewADesign 1y ago
    Ok- a transcontinental pizza order from a slice shop in Beijing, then. AliExpress’s logistics are obviously not relevant to the metaphor.
koliber 1y ago
4chan is exporting. The consumer is importing. That distinction matters.
- dommer 1y ago
  Perhaps the terms import and export aren’t suitable for internet content? Perhaps new terms with legal implications are needed for internet age?
  - koliber 1y ago
    That might be the case. However, we should not invent new things where old things suffice. Maybe it is as simple as importing digital content, and all that is different in this case is the medium. It's already illegal to import DVDs that contain illegal content into the UK. The person or company that is doing the importing is on the hook. Apply that logic to the the internet medium and we're all set. As was mentioned in another thread, it is simpler to go after the companies abroad than to build out measures that would prevent such import. Those measures would probably take the form of some sort of firewalls. They would be noticeable to the British people, and the British people, being sensitive about their civil liberties, would not like that. It's easier for Ofcam to go after a couple bigger companies, impose no cost on the British public, and tramp national sovereignty into the ground a bit along the way.

potato3732842 1y ago

They're not being lazy. The political reality is that the people of the UK are mostly sick of this shit so harassing the sources (4chan and others) is gonna cause less pushback for the same results than fining people.

koliber 1y ago
We agree in essence. I just called the avoidance of dealing with the pushback laziness.

grafmax 1y ago

Strange that this is framed as a national sovereignty issue not an issue of UK government’s overwrought free speech repression and its utilization of corporate bullying to that end. This is exactly the thing we don’t want democratic governments to do - congeal with corporate power against their people. Appealing to legality when the laws are themselves unjust is not a defense. The online safety act is broad and vague and not in the interests of UK citizens, so sovereignty appeals are completely disingenuous here. When we talk about sovereignty what we are really referring to is the power of the UK government over its people and the subservience expected of entities like 4chan to that end. We see these exact same mechanisms in the US and that’s precisely why we should not manufacture rationalizations for this kind of policy - the societal decline as a result of this cynical trend is clear.

rbanffy 1y ago
> UK government’s overwrought free speech repression and its utilization of corporate bullying to that end. If the citizens of the UK wish to express discontent, they are free to vote for a different parliament so they enact different laws. We who live outside the UK have no say on their laws.
- grafmax 1y ago
  The UK is much like the US in that democratic processes are co-opted and undermined by special interests to the point that governments engage in suppression of free speech and mass surveillance against their populations. (What’s unique to the UK is that it’s government is largely subservient to the US in the international dragnet.) We are all human and share the same human rights regardless of our nationality.
  - rbanffy 1y ago
    > The UK is much like the US in that democratic processes are co-opted and undermined by special interests A judge will not find this comment amusing, or a justification for breaking the law. You can, of course, engage in civil disobedience, but keep in mind it doesn't shield you from consequences.

rbanffy 1y ago

> They cannot prevent foreign companies from providing such content. Said companies often find it less burdensome to comply than the option of being outright blocked from the market. Brazil did that a couple times with a couple different companies. If a company wants to provide services to a given jurisdiction, it needs to comply with local regulations.

adastra22 1y ago
Fine. That’s not what’s going on here.
- rbanffy 1y ago
  It's entirely up to 4chan whether it decides to comply or not.
  - macinjosh 1y ago
    No it’s not. Ofcom has no jurisdiction to make a US company do anything. The Internet is a global marketplace. If the UK wants to remove itself from this marketplace, like it did from the EU, it will need to do the blocking itself. But Ofcom knows what the government blocking access to information looks like and they don’t have the balls to do it.
    - rbanffy 1y ago
      It was done before. Brazil did that to WhatsApp and Twitter and both companies voluntarily complied with the court requests. Rumble remains blocked because it decided it wouldn't comply with the Brazilian court orders.
      - adastra22 1y ago
        Those companies were operating in Brazil. They had income booked in Brazil that could be impounded. They had employees there and offices and had to comply with local laws. 4chan isn’t in the UK. 4chan doesn’t have UK employees or offices. 4chan doesn’t book income on the UK. 4chan didn’t have any thing to do with the UK at all. If this isn’t convincing, consider this: legally what is the difference from Afghanistan requesting anything not legally in compliance with Taliban’s laws be restricted? Would you support that? Legally that is what is going on here.