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 ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  censoring white supremacists and paedophiles is good actually.

  source

  • HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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 ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

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

      source

      • Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Same can be said for: reddit, facebook, xitter, myspace, tumblr etc etc etc.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        True, but the UK doesn’t care if it’s consensual or not.

        source
  • artyom@piefed.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

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

    source

    • cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

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

      source

      • artyom@piefed.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Good thing no one was talking about that. We were talking about freedom of speech.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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 ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Actually they do if they serves traffic to the UK.

  source

  • ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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 ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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

      • ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        GeoIP fencing is an eternal whack-a-mole, I’ve had to track down issues where a site owned by MS was blocked because they bought some public IP space previously owned by countries the client blocks.

        In the end you have countries trying to get a piece of the pie from a company that they have no ties to but being unwilling to upset the people living there by taking an effort to block it. If they think the company is behaving incorrectly then it’s on them to deny access to their citizens that they have to answer to.

        A company can’t reasonably decide which jurisdictions and IPs it should serve at any given time. If I don’t want a site in my house I don’t petition them to block my IP.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      4chan can also tell the UK to get fucked

      source
  • Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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 ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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

      • Hansae@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        In strict legal definitions that’s slightly different due to it handling defined personal data, how its processed and where its located rather than merely “Significant number of UK users accessing the site”. GDPR is also very well written and quite clear unlike the OSA which is vague, with a enforcer that’s already pretty infamous in the UK for being somewhat loopy in how they operate. Under US law and frankly international business law ofcom has pretty much zero mandate to demand what they are demanding of a entirely US domiciled company. Most matters of GDPR in regards to a foreign company will apply to companies with infra and a presence in the EU anyways.

        What the UK says here pretty much doesn’t matter in any way shape or form, and if they’re going to ban it then ban it already rather than chasing around with fines and paperwork. I’d still rather this wasn’t happening as the OSA is a massive steaming turd of a law that’ll merely be used to suppress speech.

        But yes technically if Hiroyuki Nishimura stepped foot in the UK he might wind up with some flak from it but beyond that this is just posturing.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • artyom@piefed.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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 ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      The UK is not EU.

      They were very clear about that.

      source

      • artyom@piefed.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Great, they don't operate in the UK either.

        source
    • xyro@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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

      • artyom@piefed.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        The EU can publish all the laws and articles they want. They have no authority to enforce them.

        source

        • -> View More Comments