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.
Is it even possible for Ofcom to legally fine 4chan for these issues? How does a company in the UK fine a US company?
4chan is likely using this to take it to the courts.
hope they write their legal battle in green txt
This is a case of stupid laws that still don’t understand the internet (35+ years in to wide use, mofos)
If an http GET request initiated from country A traverses routers and wires around the globe to grab some data from a server in country B, then we have to accept that the owners of the server are not “operating in country A” and in fact the user in country A is responsible for import.
If some laws in country A have a problem with this, then they should unplug their internet wires at the border, or at least learn how to use them and/or govern their citizens.
All that is tongue in cheek to say they can fuck right off.
If some laws in country A have a problem with this, then they should unplug their internet wires at the border, or at least learn how to use them and/or govern their citizens.
What used to be called The Great Firewall of China. It used to be unthinkable for western countries.
You can’t blame this on old people. This is only happening now that the Boomers are on the way out. People who sent international letters or made international phone calls were aware that they were communicating with a different country with different laws. I think we are seeing this now, because now we have people who experience the internet as something happening on their own phone, at their location.
The boomers are not on their way out. We have the exact same politicians in power that we had 30 fucking years ago.
They’re retiring or dying of old age soon, they think now’s the time to shit all over the floor and trash the place.
But thirty years ago I was half my height
Yeah it’s a stupid law and they were told it wouldn’t work by industry experts. But the politicians that were in power when all this was first been decided were Conservatives and therefore arrogant and of the opinion that if they don’t like something, it’s realities responsibility to reconfigure itself.
Then Labour got in and for some reason implemented the stupid law anyway despite having heard none of the consultations, and of course now it turns out that the consultations told them not to do it. Now I’m sure the industry experts would have been ignored anyway but Labour look really daft now.
They have basically accepted that this law is unworkable and is basically going to be ignored by everyone, but they still have to go through all of the pantomime of trying to enforce it. I’m sure eventually they’ll quietly kill it because the whole thing has been such an embarrassment for them.
I think it’s well established by now that this bunch of Labour politicians too are “arrogant and of the opinion that if they don’t like something, it’s realities responsibility to reconfigure itself”.
That would amongst other things neatly explain why they went around and implemented the stupid law.
were Conservatives and therefore arrogant and of the opinion that if they don’t like something, it’s realities responsibility to reconfigure itself.
Which is exactly what they have done with tariffs in the US.
If 4chan make revenue by advertising UK goods and services to UK users, then they are very much operating in the UK. It’s not reasonable to make the argument that you should be able to do business with a country and opt out of its laws simply by running the physical servers abroad. We don’t tolerate it for wire fraud or CSAM, but nobody’s rushing out to defend the sovereign rights of child abusers and scammers.
I don’t agree with the Online Safety Act on its own terms, but this is a dud of an argument.
Also why the fuck would you piss off 4chan with their years of stalking, ddosing, swatting, etc of successful campaigns against anything they felt wrongged or even just annoyed them.
They were defanged many years ago by the new owners and raiding is banned.
Because these people have never even heard of it. The whole party is a bunch of absolute technophobes. You should see that online advertising it’s pathetic.
Great analogy.
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.
Flipside is EU trying to enforce GDPR and such
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?
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.
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?
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.
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
Why would a local Lemmy instance ever pay a fine to China?
Imagine running a website for 20 years, changing absolutely nothing, and one day you’re being targeted because someone else on the other side of the planet changed something at their end.
Tell them to piss off.
They’ll come after your phpbb instance next.
“Block us then. We’re not paying your fines and you’ll never arrest us as we’ll never step foot in your country. Get fucked.” That’s about the response I’d have I think… attached with a photo of tubgirl or something for the classic lawls.
I wonder if Ofcom’s true goal is banning 4chan from the UK and if this is a just required part of the legal process for a ban…
4chan makes that much money?!?
They do, at least a little. You can pay for a subscription to get rid of the captcha before posting.
At least a little?
According to this article they pull in 230 million a year. For a shitty forum that looks like it’s run on 1995 tech
That’s all of moolah for/from internet trolls. Though I imagine that those servers aren’t cheap either.
They’ll never control the hacker known as 4chan
I think 4chan is a pretty cool guy. Eh gets fined by the UK and doesn’t afraid of anything.
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 UK should just block sites that don’t comply. They have no business trying to fine US websites.
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.
People should fight for their rights and free speech and make pressure on the gouvernement. Blocking is isolationism.
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.
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”
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.
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.
I didn’t delete it lol. And its happened just as I said.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Noooo the britbong threads
And they think 4chan ever complied with anything. How adorable!
They do though, 4chan complies with US laws and regulations. They regularly hand over logs to various US agencies.
The thing is, an indeterminable amount of users (and admins!) are feds, so despite giving the appearance of lawlessness, it’s actually fully compliant!
I have never seen this. It is on my list now
Million is spelled with a M
