4 ms·
As shown in that same article, they also responded: >>> "Companies – wherever they're based – are not allowed to sell unsafe toys to children in the UK. And s
by deaddodo 7mo ago
As shown in that same article, they also responded:
>>>
"Companies – wherever they're based – are not allowed to sell unsafe toys to children in the UK. And society has long protected youngsters from things like alcohol, smoking and gambling. The digital world should be no different," she said.
"The UK is setting new standards for online safety. Age checks and risk assessments are cornerstones of our laws, and we'll take robust enforcement action against firms that fall short."
<<<
Quite frankly she seems completely out of touch with her own argument. The UK can certainly legislate away tobacco sales, for instance; they can't go after tobacco producers in a foreign state. 4Chan operates in the US and is a US company. They have no jurisdiction over it, even if their citizenry can access it; it's on them to block that access if they don't like it. Unless they're also implying that the US government should be allowed to go after UK companies that don't follow it's free speech regulations because American citizens can access them.
- chrisjj 7mo ago> 4Chan operates in the US And the UK... each time it delivers there.
- wat10000 7mo agoI disagree. It's no different from selling to a foreign buyer by sending the product in the mail. You're not doing business in their country, and it's the buyer's responsibility to adhere to their local laws about imports, not yours.
- richwater 7mo agoThe UK can block whatever they want if they'd like to become an authoritarian firewall state. But they have no legal basis to fine 4chan.
- 369548684892826 7mo agoSurely they do have the legal basis, that's how the fine got issued. What they're missing is any way to enforce it.
- philipallstar 7mo agoWhat legal basis?
- chrisjj 7mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Act_2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Act_2023 The Online Safety Act 2023[1][2][3] (OSA) (c. 50) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to regulate online content. It was passed on 26 October 2023 and gives the relevant secretary of state the power to designate, suppress, and record a wide range of online content that they deem illegal or harmful to children.[4][5]
- vorpalhex 7mo ago4Chan has blocked the entire UK IP range. They do not host any infrastructure there. They are bound by UK law exactly as much as they are bound by Venutian or Mars law.
- akersten 7mo ago> 4Chan has blocked the entire UK IP range. And honestly this is more than they really should even have to do. I think it does go above their obligation. They're doing Offcom a favor here, they don't even have to figure out how to block it themselves.
- 1317 7mo ago> 4Chan has blocked the entire UK IP range this isn't true
- JonChesterfield 7mo agoNope. A direct connection from residential British Telecom line is fine.
- anigbrowl 7mo agoDon't give up your day job.
- chrisjj 7mo agoToo late. I did that years ago!
- christkv 7mo agoTheir goal is to create a presedent so they can start applying it to platforms they don't like. Its happening all over Europe not just the UK and the plan is clear. They want to repress discourse that is not officially sanctioned.
- deaddodo 7mo agoThey can try to set whatever precedent they like. But US courts won't accept the argument, so it'll just stay a fee that accumulates on some paper ledger.
- ls612 7mo agoAnd then the children of the admin are traveling somewhere and get yoinked as leverage by the UK/EU/Brazil/Whoever and all of the legal arguments in the world won't do you any good. There is only one law that matters in the real world as much as so many westerners want to put their head in the sand about it.
- whatever1 7mo agoThe real goal it to start banning US sites like fb,aws etc so that Europe starts building their own
- christkv 7mo agoNah fb, aws etc will comply. They have no spine.
- zer00eyz 7mo ago> Europe starts building their own They have had decades to do this. They have not. Risk aversion and Regulation are the heart of the issue. Same things that have flattened the American housing market for the last 30 years.
- whatever1 7mo agoThey did not because they were in the honeymoon with the US. They were buying weapons and expensive American services in exchange for security. This era is over. Today building social network or a cloud provider is a trivial exercise. If the financial incentive is there (aka ban of US services), they will pop out like mushrooms.
- gnfargbl 7mo agoSpeaking as a UK citizen: you're exactly right. If the UK wants to prevent 4chan from being imported into the UK then it needs to block it at the border as it would for physical goods. The fact that's technically hard to do (at least without going full-on CCP) doesn't change the situation. Attempting to fine a foreign entity for doing something that breaks no laws in the foreign entity's jurisdiction is just risible.
- thunderfork 7mo agoIt's very much a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. "It's an import", so they have to respond to it like they'd respond to imports... But unlike physical imports, there's a sense that blocking these imports is an affront to base philosophical freedom in a way that prohibiting physical imports isn't.
- akersten 7mo ago> there's a sense that blocking these imports is an affront to base philosophical freedom in a way that prohibiting physical imports isn't. It would serve UK legislators well to explore that tingling sense some more before they consider any further efforts in this direction, but that's just my two pence.
- fauigerzigerk 7mo agoUK ISPs do block some domains though.
- bigfatkitten 7mo ago> even if their citizenry can access it; it's on them to block that access if they don't like it Not even China and North Korea whine about or send fake “fines” to offshore entities. They just block their sites and move on with life.
- spacedcowboy 7mo ago[sigh] and this is the first (mandated) step in that process. The UK don’t expect 4chan to pay the fine, which means, once the period to pay has expired, they’ll just be blocked instead.
- bigfatkitten 7mo agoThey could skip that step entirely if the relevant legislation was people with even a general grasp of geography and how the Internet works.
- pc86 7mo agoYes but this is British legislation so that Venn diagram is two non-overlapping circles.
- lmm 7mo ago> Not even China and North Korea whine about or send fake “fines” to offshore entities. They just block their sites and move on with life. On the contrary, both of those are very active in going after people who operate websites they don't like from overseas, and/or their family members (who are often easier to get at). They just don't publish legal notices around it.
- comex 7mo ago> Unless they're also implying that the US government should be allowed to go after UK companies that don't follow it's free speech regulations because American citizens can access them. Precedent in the US is that courts do in fact have jurisdiction over a foreign website's owner if the owner "purposefully availed itself of the U.S. forum or purposefully directed its activities toward it", a test which is less demanding than it sounds. [1] And US has taken advantage of this to go after foreign websites such as Megaupload, BTC-e, Liberty Reserve, etc. Therefore, if there were a US law requiring companies to follow free speech rules, it could potentially be enforced against foreign website owners. But no such law currently exists. The First Amendment itself only applies to the US government (and to companies working on behalf of the US government). There is also the SPEECH Act, which, among other provisions, creates a cause of action where if someone sues a US person in a foreign court over their speech, they can sue back in US court. But only for declaratory judgement, not damages or an injunction. The goal is mainly just to prevent US courts from enforcing judgements from the foreign court in such cases. [1] https://tlblog.org/how-to-find-personal-jurisdiction-over-foreign-website-operators/ https://tlblog.org/how-to-find-personal-jurisdiction-over-fo...
- umpalumpaaa 7mo agoWell the US government / prosecutors go after people who break their laws all the time… eg. Kim .Com, etc
- egorfine 7mo ago> The UK is setting new standards for online safety. Keyword: "The UK". > cornerstones of our laws Keyword: "our laws". > and we'll take robust enforcement action Enforcement action can only take place within the jurisdiction (with a notable exception of the US which doesn't give a single fuck about someone else's law).
- Bender 7mo agoI believe the onus would be on countries outside of the US to block 4chan no different than China having to block a site in their great firewall for making a picture of Xi looking like Winnie the Pooh.