4 ms·

> Ofcom (isp I guess?) has been trying to force 4chan to use age verification on all visitors in compliance with UK law, All? I think not. "The Act only requi

by chrisjj 9mo ago

> Ofcom (isp I guess?) has been trying to force 4chan to use age verification on all visitors in compliance with UK law, All? I think not. "The Act only requires that services take action to protect users in the UK - it does not require them to protect users anywhere else in the world. The measures that Ofcom recommends providers take to comply with their duties only relate to the design or operation of the service in the UK or as it affects UK users." https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/protecting-people-in-the-uk-from-illegal-online-content https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...

JoshTriplett 9mo ago
You are taking ofcom's statements at face value and assuming them to be accurate, rather than blatant lies and spin. And even to the extent that that statement were true, it's still overreach to claim any ability to regulate companies outside their jurisdiction. It is not the responsibility of people outside their jurisdiction to help them oppress their citizens; it's just more politically safe to attempt extraterritorial enforcement than it is to put up a country-wide firewall.
- chrisjj 9mo ago
  > You are taking ofcom's statements at face value and assuming them to be accurate, rather than blatant lies and spin. No I am not. I've verified those statements against the Online Safety Act itself. Please feel free to substantiate your suggestion they are "blatant lies and spin".
  - JoshTriplett 9mo ago
    Ofcom's claimed aims are simultaneously overreaching even in what they claim to want, and inconsistent with their actual enforcement actions which in some cases seem intentionally unsatisfiable by any means other than "stop existing online". Empirically, their attempts at enforcement on non-UK entities, which should not even be able to go as far as "block UK users" (not a responsibility of a non-UK entity), don't stop with "block UK users", and also attempt to enforce "don't suggest VPNs" and "block VPNs", which are not aspects inherently associated with UK users specifically as opposed to any other country. And all that is leaving aside that the claimed aims of "protecting UK users" are confirmed false, in legal filings: https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy222 https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy2...
    - chrisjj 9mo ago
      > their actual enforcement actions which in some cases seem intentionally unsatisfiable by any means other than "stop existing online" OK, so you are disputing Ofcom's: "The measures that Ofcom recommends providers take to comply with their duties only relate to the design or operation of the service in the UK or as it affects UK users". Feel free to show even one Ofcom demand that goes beyond service to UK users only.
replooda 9mo ago
> VPNs ... can enable people to access online services in a way ... they do not benefit from protections required by the Online Safety Act They sound like abusive partners of the "you're confused, I'm doing this for your own good" variety. It must have taken real discipline, resisting the urge to add an "or else" somewhere, perhaps a few iterations of "I'm going to marry you someday, Lorraine!"

by chrisjj 9mo ago

JoshTriplett 9mo ago

You are taking ofcom's statements at face value and assuming them to be accurate, rather than blatant lies and spin. And even to the extent that that statement were true, it's still overreach to claim any ability to regulate companies outside their jurisdiction. It is not the responsibility of people outside their jurisdiction to help them oppress their citizens; it's just more politically safe to attempt extraterritorial enforcement than it is to put up a country-wide firewall.

chrisjj 9mo ago
> You are taking ofcom's statements at face value and assuming them to be accurate, rather than blatant lies and spin. No I am not. I've verified those statements against the Online Safety Act itself. Please feel free to substantiate your suggestion they are "blatant lies and spin".
- JoshTriplett 9mo ago
  Ofcom's claimed aims are simultaneously overreaching even in what they claim to want, and inconsistent with their actual enforcement actions which in some cases seem intentionally unsatisfiable by any means other than "stop existing online". Empirically, their attempts at enforcement on non-UK entities, which should not even be able to go as far as "block UK users" (not a responsibility of a non-UK entity), don't stop with "block UK users", and also attempt to enforce "don't suggest VPNs" and "block VPNs", which are not aspects inherently associated with UK users specifically as opposed to any other country. And all that is leaving aside that the claimed aims of "protecting UK users" are confirmed false, in legal filings: https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy222 https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy2...
  - chrisjj 9mo ago
    > their actual enforcement actions which in some cases seem intentionally unsatisfiable by any means other than "stop existing online" OK, so you are disputing Ofcom's: "The measures that Ofcom recommends providers take to comply with their duties only relate to the design or operation of the service in the UK or as it affects UK users". Feel free to show even one Ofcom demand that goes beyond service to UK users only.

replooda 9mo ago

> VPNs ... can enable people to access online services in a way ... they do not benefit from protections required by the Online Safety Act They sound like abusive partners of the "you're confused, I'm doing this for your own good" variety. It must have taken real discipline, resisting the urge to add an "or else" somewhere, perhaps a few iterations of "I'm going to marry you someday, Lorraine!"