4 ms·

> 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,

> 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.
      - LexGray 1y ago
        It is a strange definition of relatively trivial to ask each and every person on the planet who has served content to be aware of all constantly changing local judicial content restrictions, to identify the location of their users, and to identify which specific bits of the content they are serving is problematic. It is a massive global undertaking involving untold collective man hours developing, implementing, and updating. They may as well be adding an invisible 1/2 pent tax on every man woman and child like some sort of hidden global sovereign. This is a war they lost long ago and they keep trying to take power to which they are not entitled. The correct answer is like the Boston tea party dumping their imperial assumptions into the ocean. If they want to block content they should take the responsibility to do so themselves. Even just blocking advertisers who fund problem sites would probably take care of whatever problem they are trying to solve.
  - ghusto 1y ago
    > It is providing content to IPs located in the UK, therefore, it's knowingly exporting content This is not true. There are many steps before the content is provided to IPs in the UK, with the pertinent ones being after it reaches the ISP from the backbones.
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.

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.
    - LexGray 1y ago
      It is a strange definition of relatively trivial to ask each and every person on the planet who has served content to be aware of all constantly changing local judicial content restrictions, to identify the location of their users, and to identify which specific bits of the content they are serving is problematic. It is a massive global undertaking involving untold collective man hours developing, implementing, and updating. They may as well be adding an invisible 1/2 pent tax on every man woman and child like some sort of hidden global sovereign. This is a war they lost long ago and they keep trying to take power to which they are not entitled. The correct answer is like the Boston tea party dumping their imperial assumptions into the ocean. If they want to block content they should take the responsibility to do so themselves. Even just blocking advertisers who fund problem sites would probably take care of whatever problem they are trying to solve.
- ghusto 1y ago
  > It is providing content to IPs located in the UK, therefore, it's knowingly exporting content This is not true. There are many steps before the content is provided to IPs in the UK, with the pertinent ones being after it reaches the ISP from the backbones.

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.