• MrSulu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    As shitty as 4chan is, as dumb and pointless as that UK legislation is, we STILL invited Trump to dine with the King. The Royal family didn’t even invite thier own pedo.

  • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    14 hours ago

    4chan is an extreme example of an unmoderated site - indeed it’s what the OSA was designed to combat. If this legislative test fails, it would undermine the acts legitimacy, and provoke questions as to it’s existence.

    It’s a shit law - it’s not fit for purpose. Its sole reason for existence is to controle public speech, not protect the children.

  • F_State@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Well fuck the UK but lolz at 4chan. Once, long ago, they were a place to watch faces of death type stuff. And it went downhill from there.

  • Avicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I would normally be sympathetic to their stand except earlier this year when this first started, they called on Trump to use all available political leverages to prevent this and protect free speech. Calling on Trump to protect free speech is just absolutely ridiculous.

      • nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        4chan is full of assholes, but blocking websites is pretty fucked. what person wants their government doing that?

        • WALLACE@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          14 hours ago

          None of us do. Most of us have started using VPNs ever since this law came into effect.

    • Rose56@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Let’s start with who they going to fine, and which domains will they Ban!
      But yea, it could happen.

  • spez@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    I might not like what you have to say, but I’ll defend to death, your right to say it kinda shit

    • WALLACE@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      The permission of unrestricted hate speech is what leads the people like your current president being your current president.

      • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Maybe, but what about when governments start saying being anti-israel is hate speech?

        • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          Once your govt has been captured by foreign interests, it doesn’t really matter what laws are on the books anyway, they’ll find a way to screw you over.

        • hayvan@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Early this year Rümeysa Öztürk was kidnapped and deported from USA with precisely that excuse. Anti-Israel hence pro Hamas hence enemy of USA.

      • nekbardrun@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        There is an obvious reason why countries like Germany make a strong stance against any “trolling” nazi joke/imagery/salute.

        But America’s First Amendment seems to not understand that reason (or only understand when it is weaponized against communism, black people, trans rights and all the “woke culture” stuff)

        • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          But America’s First Amendment seems to not understand that reason (or only understand when it is weaponized against communism, black people, trans rights and all the “woke culture” stuff)

          Like alot of things in the USA, laws are selectively enforced to protect the status quo.

          “Youre anti fascist? Youre a terrorist!”

        • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          America’s first amendment doesn’t grant a total right to free speech. Conspiracy to commit murder is just speech, but is very much illegal, and so is copyright infringement.

      • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 days ago

        Everyone has a different definition, but yeah generally free speech in an ideal sense extends to just before you start causing what a reasonable person would concern harm to someone.

        • FelixCress@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          2 days ago

          Fuck that. People spreading racial hate and public lies with the intention to mislead the public should be locked up.

          • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I would say intent matters and while it’s impossible to truly determine it, we still have a distinction for murder/manslaughter and negligence.

            If a politician lies or hides something for personal gain, that should be illegal, but there’s so much stuff the state does where it’s best if the general public don’t know, public order would probably break down pretty quickly otherwise.

            Same with racial hate. If it’s just stating an opinion, fine, I probably don’t agree but go ahead. If you’re actively trying to harm (mentally, economically, socially or physically) that group, or inciting others to do the same, then that’s not fine.

            • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              I can’t think of where “racial hate” could possibly be “just stating an opinion” without also causing harm that is both mental and social.

              • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                It depends how you define “racial hate” and how you define mental or social harm. I also do mean social harm, not societal, meaning to catch things like sunset communities (ie restricting where people can live, or where they can go), rather than “society is worse off because of people’s opinions.”

                Again, in my opinion, it depends on intent. If you make a post on your blog with 200 followers saying “I’m tired of X race moving to my city,” I don’t think that should be illegal, even if it is disgusting behaviour. If you post it to (eg) a community group for those people, I’d say it should be illegal.

                That said, I’m very liberal on policing, so believe that the state shouldn’t be responsible for policing morality, which people may not like when they realise it involves making things that are pretty much objectively immoral legal, regardless of what they are.

                • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  You seem to think that if something is indirect it isn’t harmful, so being openly racist with your friends is OK as long as you’re not telling the people you’re dehumanizing directly? Sounds like you would think cheating on your wife is OK as long as she didn’t find out.

                  Personally, I don’t think there is any good or acceptable racial hatred, and pretending that there is is what got the neofascists so much political clout around the world.

  • fistac0rpse@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s ridiculous for the UK to issue fines to a company who doesn’t operate in the country. Just block access if that’s whatever your stupid laws dictate.

    • fodor@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Nobody cares what the UK thinks. The company has no presence over there. Down with the British. :-)

    • FelixCress@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      EU fined number of tech giants before, this is not new. If you have users and derive income from a country, you are operating in this country.

      • Semperverus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Those tech giants operate in the EU and have EU customers. 4Chan does neither and stores no user data. At that point the onus is on the user and the UK/EU should be going after their own citizens that use it if they have a problem with it being used. Ideally, they wouldn’t go after anyone but here we are.

        • WALLACE@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          That’s like saying that a company can freely import guns into a country where they are banned, but it’s all the civilians fault if they buy any.