Comment on 4chan is getting fined in the UK by the Office of Communications(Ofcom) under Online Safety Act; 4Chan Respond by appealing to Trump administration and intending to fight it in the U.S courts.

cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

• Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Cheering on disturbing censorship legislation is pretty cringe, their lawyers are also correct the UK has zero legal standing to make these sorts of demands of companies with zero infra in their borders when.it comes to international & US law.

  source

  • cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    censoring white supremacists and paedophiles is good actually.

    source

    • HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      But they’re not censoring 4chan because they’re white supremacist, they’re censoring them because of consensual adult material.

      source

      • cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        consensual and 4chan should not be in the same sentence given their history.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • artyom@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      That's not how human rights work. Either they're for everyone or they're for no one.

      source

      • cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        you don't have a human right to be sexually attracted to kids or want to kill minorities.........

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I actually sometimes use 4chan, if that’s what you think it is then you’re frankly pretty deluded & again these laws are dangerous and will eventually be turned on something you support. You are falling hook line and sinker for ye olde “think of the kids” line that the political class roll out for authoritarian surveillance legislation.Image

      source
  • xyro@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Actually they do if they serves traffic to the UK.

    source

    • ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      By that token, I could start my own private Island nation, make some batty rules, log into a sight, and demand a bajillion dollars because my laws say so.

      Internet doesn’t work that way, access is not presence of operations.

      source

      • xyro@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Some countries already do (See fines from Russia to Google), but the compagnies don’t have to operate in those countries and can choose to not serve traffic to IPs from that country.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        4chan can also tell the UK to get fucked

        source
    • Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Not under US law & I say this as a Brit, the UK is massively overstepping their authority at this point.

      source

      • xyro@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        US law does not cover privacy like GDPR, however compagnies still have to comply with GDPR if they process EU data. Same logic apply here

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • artyom@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      It doesn't matter where they "serve traffic". They do not operate in the EU and thus are not subject to EU law.

      source

      • Honytawk@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        The UK is not EU.

        They were very clear about that.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • xyro@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        In case of GDPR, this is not true and compagnies are subject to this EU law if they process EU citizens’ personal data. Wether they comply or can be prosecuted is another thing gdpr.eu/companies-outside-of-europe/

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Korhaka@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Oh no, a DNS block. Does that even work on DNS over HTTPS?

  source