- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
If 4chan continues to ignore Ofcom, the forum could be blocked in the UK. And 4chan could face even bigger fines totaling about $23 million or 10 percent of 4chan’s worldwide turnover, whichever is higher. 4chan also faces potential arrest and/or “imprisonment for a term of up to two years,” the lawsuit said.
You must log in or register to comment.
I have never seen this. It is on my list now
Gone
And they think 4chan ever complied with anything. How adorable!
The thing is, an indeterminable amount of users (and admins!) are feds, so despite giving the appearance of lawlessness, it’s actually fully compliant!
They do though, 4chan complies with US laws and regulations. They regularly hand over logs to various US agencies.
Is it even possible for Ofcom to legally fine 4chan for these issues? How does a company in the UK fine a US company?
It isn’t really an US company for say. It just conveniently claims itself an US company. The servers probably are not in the US
The argument 4chan uses is laughable. “Freedom of speech of every American?” Tere is no such protection in the US right now.
No one is watching the news? Trump is killing freedom of speech. Anyone dares to advocate equality is getting fired or estorcised. All rainbow, trans or minority rights signs are being eliminated. Our rainbow sidewalk in my city was repainted. Diversity programs are dismantled. Any minority names program is being renamed. Less black people are being hired in the white house than ever.
Even now som states require you to prove your identity before your can log into Internet.
American invention? American right? Lol.
I agree, but letting a foreign government dictate what you can and cannot say on your site is dangerous. If 4chan capitulates then countless other sites are on the chopping block.
deleted by creator
Bilateral agreements may exist.
It works the same way they can fine domestic businesses: Pay up or we’ll stop you from doing any more business in this country.
In the context of a website like 4chan that means pay the fine or get blocked by every UK based ISP.
Oh no! That one country out of all the other ones will be the biggest loss ever!
Anyway, about these things called VPNs.
I think this sentiment is common but misses some important things. First: the UK is a big market of internet users, so losing it is not insignificant. Second: most people will not bother with a VPN because it’s annoying or costs money. Third: from the UK’s perspective, banning non-compliant sites is a good thing.
Recognising all this is important, because it’s part of resisting such censorious laws.
The population of internet users is tiny compared to the total population of internet users in the Western world.
Nothing great or significant is lost.
It’s the 4th largest country of origin for 4chan from what I can find. It doesn’t sound like you’re actually responding to what I said is being missed. Guess you don’t want to.
I just dint think any of it matters. UK is a big market for Internet users… Yes, like any other developed country.
It is only the 4th largest country for 4chan… Which isn’t even in the top 3.
The UK not having access to 4chan is of no consequence, and the kinds of people that still hang out there would probably know their way around a VPN.
There is no further thing that’s worth addressing.
I don’t think that would deter any of their user base.
they don’t have that kind of money they can’t pay that shit are you nuts
Probably why they didn’t do it in the first place.
They barely pay for moderation. Who is going to pay for that survey? And also why would they? Obviously most of the people on that site are under 18. That’s when I used it.
What other demographic clicks the horny ads they run?
This censorship shit is out of control.
Damn fucking straight. I hope it starts an privacy movement so big they realize that all the laws passed since 2000 against terrorism were abject failures and repeal all of them.
Canada is trying to pass major surveillance shit on par with the patriot act on steroids and effectively nullify the need for warrants, all in the name of ‘strong borders’ and anti terrorism even though it literally gives many US owned and operated companies full and complete access to digital information on Canadians, ironically weakening borders in every way.
And for what? What is the terrorism threat? Al-Qaeda was a always a joke, and the fact that 9/11 happened was far more due to a monumental failure of all intelligence services combined and not due to a lack of resources. Terrorist schemes have been thwarted in the past without the need for extensive surveillance… and most plots are still thwarted primarily by informants and insiders speaking to authorities. The whole 'we need to be super proactive ’ has yielded shit results.
Most of the stuff that they claim was 'prevented proactively ’ was literally entrapment. They found some mentally ill and/or lonely people who would have done nothing on their own, but ended up being goaded into stupid crap when undercover agents flirted with them, encouraged them, and even offered weapons and explosives for them to use, and if they agreed… well, that’s when they nabbed them. No terrorism would have occurred if agents didn’t do shit.
Have you ever wondered why so many people are highly distrustful of people talking about doing violent shit? Fed posting? Its because agents have such a long ass history of doing that that you cannot tell who is and who isn’t a Fed.
4chan is likely using this to take it to the courts.
hope they write their legal battle in green txt
be me
American’t social mediatard
Britbongs demand money
Notmyproblem.png
> be me
> mfwThe defense rests.
4chan’s actual legal response to this can be summarized as “We are incorporated in Delaware which has not been subject to UK law since 1783. See the Treaty of Paris”.
4chan also faces potential arrest and/or “imprisonment for a term of up to two years,” the lawsuit said.
You don’t want to be locked in a small cell with 4chan for two years.
You don’t want to be locked in a small cell with 4chan for two years.
Not again.
“I’m not stuck here with you. You’re stuck here with me!”
The global push for censorship is accelerating and not nearly enough people are woke to it.
If you’re ok with this then imagine your local lemmy instance getting fined by China/Qatar/Thailand/etc for posting something breaking their laws.
Fine the phone company for allowing calls they don’t like.
Fuck yes, fine the phone companies who allow these spoofed phone number scammers to reach me. (/s… Mostly)
Actually they should close that loophole.
More likely than dining then for calls I don’t want to get they they facilitate by selling my data. Linda of like the scale car warrantee mail you get because the DMV sold your data.
Flipside is EU trying to enforce GDPR and such
Gross Domestic… Projekt Red?
T’was a poorly-marked joke.
GDPR can only be enforced if the business wants to continue to do business in Europe. There are lots of non-European businesses that do not enforce GDPR rules but they can’t sell products or services in Europe.
But of course 4chan doesn’t sell any products or services anywhere, it’s not a business, so it’s a bit hard to see exactly how this could be enforced.
It’s selling 4chan passes, yeah it’s a thing unfortunately
If they operate in China then it seems legit. If they don’t operate in China it’s a non issue.
This might be stupid, but the corollary of your statement is that a sovereign nation can’t impose laws on foreign business…
That what you want?
Unironically yes. Otherwise the internet as we know it is very much over, and what we have instead is a mesh of country-nets.
I mean, what is actually “doing business” when it comes a simple web page or a forum for example? Merely existing and being reachable.
Otherwise the internet as we know it is very much over, and what we have instead is a mesh of country-nets.
which, TBH, doesn’t seem so bad to me. as an european, i’m personally sick of all the sick (as in, unwell) culture from america swapping over via the internet and poisoning people’s minds.
i mean, all the culture war is literally instigated by american capitalists to disrupt society and to disrupt the people’s coherence, to make them weaker and therefore easier to exploit.
If it wasn’t for continuous exposure to american influence, europe would long have drastic left-wing political reforms, i guess.
Oh yes, because it’s not like Nigel Farage, Victor Orban and a bunch of other populists didn’t make use of US companies and advisors (and russian funds…) on how to best fracture societies to their end. Clearly nuking the internet would put an end to that, and all would be well.
Yeah, and a county could say “you can’t do business in our county anymore” and block them
A country can ban dildos, but they don’t get to tell a foreign factory they can’t make dildos. If an importer orders dildos anyways, that’s between the importer and customs. Which in this case the importer is the ISP
My server is in the corned of my bedroom. How the hell can I be operating in China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Brazil, Norway, or The UK if my bedroom is in none of those countries?
That’s kind of exactly my point? If China came to you and said you owe us fines, why would you voluntarily do so?
Yes. You can impose as much laws as you can enforce them. Don’t want your citizens to buy anything from me, stop shipments at your border. Want to stop payments, talk to your banks. Want to stop access to my servers, block them at your routers.
Why the fuck should I enforce your rules for you? You made them, you figure out how you will make them work.
you being the UK government, in this case.
You shouldn’t… As you said, how are they going to make you?
Why would a local Lemmy instance ever pay a fine to China?
Same way ofcom expects anyone outside UK to pay up, I guess.
4chan can be the first website blocked by the great firewalls of British cooking. potatoes and boiled cocks. not bad if im honest
4chan also faces potential arrest and/or “imprisonment for a term of up to two years,” the lawsuit said.
I wanna see how a website would be sent to jail.
I see you never downloaded a car before.
They could go after the owner. I believe he lives in Japan, all the UK has to do is send an extradition request to the Japanese government, bing bang boom all done.
Which they would laugh at. Even the Chinese government would laugh at such a request. It isn’t something that is considered universally a crime, like robbery and murder, but the type of shit they are asking for is so fucking unprecedented and unreasonable it’s stupid.
It would be like if the UK demanded that France immediately extradite all legal handgun owners in France (where handguns are legal) because it is a crime to possess one in Great Britain and therefore they are criminals. Makes no sense.
Clearly they’re after the notorious hacker known as 4chan
All 4 of them face charges.
If they live in China, good luck figuring iut which of the Chans there are these four.
The UK should just block sites that don’t comply. They have no business trying to fine US websites.
It’s a process. They need to issue the fine first to give them a chance to pay rather than jumping to blocking it. If they continue to refuse to pay that’s where it’ll go.
The uk is irrelevant anyways. They will not be missed when they strengthen the Great Firewall rules
people exist here though :(
Then get your asses in order. If you have doubts, the French across ye pond taught pretty well how to use guillotines to achieve it. Didn’t you guys also have a mask guy do the same?
It’s an interesting idea that countries could only fine websites that operate in said country. Could get away with a lot by finding a permissive country to do what would otherwise be illegal and worth of fines.
“Selling user’s private information illegally? Buddy, Tuvalo don’t care”
That’s … how it works.
Nope lol, countries definitely try to fine websites not operated in the same country. Sometimes they’re just not succesful
Not just “sometimes”. The thing you’re looking for is “jurisdiction”. A country doesn’t have jurisdiction in another.
The comment I replied to talked about trying to fine websites based outside the respective country. Countries obviously still try that
People should fight for their rights and free speech and make pressure on the gouvernement. Blocking is isolationism.
Extort, you mean. The law threatens them with abduction and being held in captivity.
What? No it doesn’t, not as long as the people responsible don’t step foot in the UK.
If they do - yes they’ll be arrested for having broken UK law.
I guess thats not a threat? Not sure what else youd classify that as. “If you step on our turf you’re going to be jailed” is just peaceful language haha
You have to obey the law of whatever country you are currently occupying, even if the rule is bad shit crazy, actually especially if the rule is bat shit crazy. There are plenty of people who have done nothing wrong who would be arrested if they step foot in China, but that doesn’t really bother anyone because they don’t step foot in China.
Also it would be interesting to see what they would even be charged with, since offcom don’t really have authority to issue arrest warrants. Ofcom barely have the authority to enforce UK law in the UK. Otherwise the likes of GB news wouldn’t exist.
You have to obey the law of whatever country you are currently occupying.
They’re not “occupying” or even operating here. all the servers have been in Texas since 2008. The British gov are attempting to legislate feature implementations for companies that aren’t operating in britain. it’s ridiculous.
Apparently they are operating in the UK though apparently they are selling some kind of pro service, so they are operating in the UK. To be clear it’s a stupid law, but it is the law.
deleted by creator
Then 4chan shouldn’t do business in the UK by selling 4chan passes there.
4chan should just block UK IPs. They already ban VPN IPs from posting, so obviously they have some infrastructure there to support that.
Noooo the britbong threads
Imagine for a moment that 4chan is a business that sells alcoholic beverages in the US. Now imagine the UK has instituted prohibition and banned the consumption of alcohol.
now, some enterprising individuals have taken it upon themselves to buy, smuggle, and then sell those beverages inside the UK.
Clearly, the government has intended to ban the consumption of alcohol, not the sale of it.
Now the UK government is trying to shackle hefty fines against an American company for having the “audacity” of selling a product to an individual within the confines of the US.
again, the UK banned the consumption of alcohol, not the sale of. 4Chan isn’t forcing UK citizens to drink the alcohol. They are simply selling the product, within their country of origin, to individuals who want to purchase it.
now, do you still think the UK government has a right to fine 4chan or do you think maybe the UK government should elaborate on their prohibition regulations to ensure their citizens are properly “protected”?
now, some enterprising individuals have taken it upon themselves to buy, smuggle, and then sell those beverages inside the UK
Wouldn’t it be more akin to those individuals putting the alcohol into 4chan’s trucks that are taking other stuff to the UK? (and worse with 4chan’s knowledge)
In that case do you think it’s unreasonable that the uk government imposes penalties for 4chan refusing to remove the alcohol that they know is there from the trucks.
And then if 4chan then refuses to pay said penalties start to not allow them to bring any trucks into the uk at all?
the “trucks” in your example are the users computers/phones.
the highways are the Internet, which is owned and maintained by the UK government after their “gate”.
the alcohol is the content.
4chans trucks deliver to the UKs “gate” and the UK user does the rest from there on the UK highways.
if the UK doesn’t want the alcohol in their country, they need to stop their citizens from purchasing it and block it from entering their country at their “gate”.
this is what any reasonable country would do. they (UK) already do it for actual physical products like potassium bromate, azodicarbonamide, and certain artificial food dyes like Yellow 5 and Yellow 6.
Are they going to sue or fine the companies that manufacture those products? no. They’re going to ban the products that use them and then go after the individuals that smuggle them in.
the “trucks” in your example are the users computers/phones.
No it’s the packets being sent from the 4chan server.
Stopping every single packet (or in the real world truck) to check it isn’t feasible, do that and you get 20 mile queues up the m20 (and the digital version of that). Plus any government trying to so it like that would get accused of tax payers money due to the insane amount of resources that would be needed.
Placing the responsibility on the company makes sense, so does issuing penalties for non compliance. The company that has a fine issued against them can of course ignore it if they’re set up outside the country that issues the fine. But they should then expect the country issuing the fine to escalate. If they don’t pay and don’t comply they can expect to have any assets in the uk seized and eventually get blocked from operating entirely. And probably have any executives arrested of they enter the country. Ofcom can’t just jump to getting a court order though because they need to be fair and give 4chan a chance to comply if they want to.
The problem with the online safety act is that it exists at all, and that they expect people to use third party authentication services many of which are operating from countries with poor data protection regulations. That said, as iit does exist the logic of saying that companies are the ones responsible for what people access from their servers does make sense.
Okkkkkay so I’ll play your hypothetical game.
So in your scenario here, some enterprising individuals start off by smuggling alcohol into the UK. By definition according to Merriam-Webster, smuggling is: “to import or export secretly contrary to the law and especially without paying duties imposed by law”.
According to UK laws, this has the following consequences:
Penalties for Drug Smuggling
The legal consequences of drug smuggling in the United Kingdom are robust and intricate. These penalties are designed to deter and punish those involved in the illicit trade of controlled substances, and they vary significantly depending on the nature and scale of the offense.Prison Sentences
Convictions for drug smuggling can result in substantial prison sentences. The duration of imprisonment varies based on factors such as the type and quantity of drugs involved, the defendant’s role in the operation, and any previous criminal history. For Class A drugs like heroin or cocaine, sentences can range from several years to life imprisonment. The courts take a particularly stern stance on those involved in large-scale drug trafficking operations, often imposing the harshest sentences.Fines
In addition to imprisonment, courts may impose hefty fines on individuals convicted of drug smuggling. These financial penalties are meant to act as both a punishment and a deterrent. Fines can be substantial and are typically proportional to the severity of the offense and the defendant’s financial means.Confiscation Orders
The UK’s legal system has mechanisms to prevent criminals from profiting from their drug smuggling activities. Courts can issue confiscation orders requiring the defendant to surrender any assets or wealth acquired through drug smuggling. This means that criminals face prison time and fines and risk losing ill-gotten gains.Forfeiture of Assets
In cases where assets such as vehicles, boats, properties, or other possessions were used to commission drug smuggling offenses, law enforcement agencies can seize these assets through forfeiture proceedings. This serves as a punishment for the offender and a means to disrupt criminal enterprises.Travel Restrictions
Convictions related to drug smuggling can result in travel restrictions imposed on the individual. These restrictions may include bans on leaving the country to prevent the convicted person from continuing their criminal activities abroad. Such measures are implemented to ensure that those involved in drug smuggling cannot easily evade justice by fleeing the country.Lets move to the selling of the illegally imported alcohol:
You can be stopped, fined or arrested by police if you’re under 18 and drinking alcohol in public.
If you’re under 18, it’s against the law:
- for someone to sell you alcohol
- to buy or try to buy alcohol
- for an adult to buy or try to buy alcohol for you
- to drink alcohol in licensed premises (such as a pub or restaurant)
However, if you’re 16 or 17 and accompanied by an adult, you can drink (but not buy) beer, wine or cider with a meal.
If you’re 16 or under, you may be able to go to a pub (or premises primarily used to sell alcohol) if you’re accompanied by an adult. However, this isn’t always the case. It can also depend on the specific conditions for that premises.
It’s illegal to give alcohol to children under 5.
For the sake of your argument, we’ll remove the law that says its illegal to sell alcohol to children, I guess? Regardless, it might be some enterprising individuals that are selling it, but they are selling the alcohol in the UK. In UK currency, To UK residents. In the UK. We are getting into possibly exchanging UK currency for US currency, which is a whole new can of worms, but we can save that for later.
Now to your question:
now, do you still think the UK government has a right to fine 4chan or do you think maybe the UK government should elaborate on their prohibition regulations to ensure their citizens are properly “protected”?
Easy answer is yes. They should be fined for smuggling alcohol into the UK, which is what the current law calls for.
Now hypothetical for you.
Imagine for a moment that the UK has banned looking at alcohol if you are under 18. Doesn’t matter if you look at alcohol if you are over the age of 18, but you just can’t legally look at alcohol if you are under 18.
Now someone comes along named 4chan and builds a giant building in the UK that has a ton of alcohol inside of it. There isn’t anything outside of the building. Its only inside where the alcohol is. They don’t have protections in place that prevent anyone under 18 from going inside the building. Anyone can come in and look. You can be 5 years old, or 100 years old. As a matter of fact, tons of people from all over the UK come and visit this building daily, even children.
Now the UK government comes along and says, “Hey 4chan, you need to verify that anyone that goes into your building is at least 18 years old, because if someone under 18 looks at the alcohol in there, thats against the law.”
4chan ignores the UK and continues letting anyone inside, not verifying anyone’s age. Not only that, but they’re actually selling alcohol to children in there, and letting children make their own alcohol as well.
Should the UK be allowed to fine/arrest 4chan until they meet the demands?
long, horizontal scroll boxes of text that isn’t code
proper blockquotes elsewhereYou clearly know how to blockquote: use it correctly.
Used it correctly per Mozilla’s blockquote documentation, as I was quoting another source.
Nope: the horizontal scroll boxes (marked up as code blocks) don’t contain code & no one should have to horizontally scroll long prose. Those code blocks should be blockquotes.
Mozilla’s blockquote documentation
The markdown documentation is built right into the lemmy editor (as the help icon).
Edited it. Hows that?
Looks like it doesn’t get rendered correctly on my end
Learn to read.
Read what, exactly?
gonna be honest, I didn’t read anything past this part.
So in your scenario here, 4chan starts off by smuggling alcohol into the UK.
I didn’t read any of it because you clearly didn’t read what I said.
here’s the part you conveniently forgot and it literally changes the entire argument.
some enterprising individuals have taken it upon themselves to buy, smuggle, and then sell those beverages inside the UK.
next time you want to argue your point don’t employ the use of bad faith tactics and try to argue your point without manufacturing flaws.
LOL okay but you said:
now, do you still think the UK government has a right to fine 4chan or do you think maybe the UK government should elaborate on their prohibition regulations to ensure their citizens are properly “protected”?
I went ahead and edited it for you so it says enterprising individuals… which you end up asking about 4chan anyways
still not reading it. you attempted to argue under false pretenses and I’m not wasting my time on something you probably used AI to generate.
I didn’t use AI at all.
Why should that be their problem?
Because they’re doing business in that region. You don’t just get to go to another country and do business as you please there.
Isn’t it people in the UK that go to a US company and do business there?
Not with the internet. 4chan uses a payment processor that allows UK residents to pay with UK currency.
“Allows” - do they do anything specifically for the UK?
They allow UK residents to use a credit or debit card to pay for passes.
Maybe UK payments processors should bar purchases of 4chan passes then.
They will definitely do that soon if 4chan doesn’t respond to the Ofcom’s demands, at least in the UK.
Not you again… genuinely convinced this user is a bot. He made this same argument a month ago on a now deleted post almost verbatim. I disputed his claims with evidence and they continuously moved the goalpost through the entire argument. either braindead or just software please ignore.
Then explain why you disagree instead of coming at them with ad-hominem.
Not who you replied to, but: there is no legal, ethical, or moral, requirement for a business of one country to comply with the laws of another. If there was, all business would be beholden to the most overbearing government on any one subject. And just to specifically state it before it’s brought up, being tied into the international banking system doesn’t change that; if a state doesn’t want its citizenry doing business with a particular entity, it’s on them to stop it on their side or come to an agreement with the other’s government. Which does happen, especially with the conglomerate hegemony of components of the international banking system, but naturally that means that the only time any entity of a state is forced to comply with the laws of another is when their home-state demands it, which ultimately isn’t the laws of the other.
Their payment processor is operating in the UK though. 4chan isn’t refusing money from UK residents. It is accepting their payments.
4Chan doesn’t have their own personal payment processor that they’re responsible for. They’re tied into processors like stripe and accept all payments that make it to them on the US side. So long as it is legal, which is typically the only way that a payment actually goes through as processors refuse the obviously illegal cases like encompassing embargoes. If the UK doesn’t want payments going to 4chan through a processor that operates in their country, it’s on them to stop the payment processor on their end.
The UK knows this, the fines are just one step towards them petitioning processors.
I didn’t delete it lol. And its happened just as I said.
So then… Potential arrest and imprisonment for 4chan for no proven damage. Meanwhile, Trump can visit the King.
Potential arrest and imprisonment for failing to pay the fine, you mean? That would be a proven damage, wouldn’t it?
Will the notorious hacker known as 4chan finally get his comeuppance?
