4chan will refuse to pay daily UK fines, its lawyer tells BBC

Comments

• IllNess@infosec.pub ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  There are already a lot of products and services created to block adult material. Instead of wasting millions of dollars and thousands of hours of human power, they could’ve made a law to opt-in to these services at the service provider level.

  For example, in this situation, nearly all blocking services would block 4chan.

  source

  • kbal@fedia.io ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    They tried that. Don't underestimate the progress already made towards building the Great Firewall of Britain. I guess the main problem was that when the filtering was optional, too many people chose to opt out.

    source

    • scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Wow so many people disagreed that it flipped. Almost like people don’t want it

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • IllNess@infosec.pub ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      First off thank you for the info. Second what comes next is not directed towards you.

      SO WHAT THE FUCK IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM THEN?!

      source
• cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  then ban 4chan in the uk.

  source

  • icelimit@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    How does one ban a website within a geographical border? Isn’t that censorship?

    source

    • belated_frog_pants@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Ip blocking at state ran/sponsored networking level. But censorship is the point of the age verification law so that would be their end goal.

      source
    • Scipitie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      The first part is a technical question and the second part a definition one.

      For the how to: the most common approach is to simply blacklist their IPs on a provider basis. This leads to no provider that obeys your blacklists to allow their users traffic to that target. Usually all providers in a nation obey that nations law (I assume, I only know that for my own :D)

      For the censorship: I don’t like that word because it’s implications fan be used against any and all laws. A shitload of content is made inaccessible because it breaks laws from active coordination of attacks to human trafficking. All of this can be described as censorship.

      Forthe UK law it’s… I’m not British and to me it appears to be a vague tool to silence and control all types of content under the guise of protecting children. Not with the intention to protect or prevent something but with the intent to control. I would fully understand and emphasize with using the word censorship in this context.

      source
    • Flax_vert@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Yes, it is censorship. The UK already has a blacklist of websites. rt.com is on there along with sputnik news and rossiyasegodnya.com/

      source
    • HarkMahlberg@kbin.earth ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      4chan has been all too eager to spread Russian propaganda for over a decade, and has been a festering sore on the internet even longer still. I wouldn't let the paradox of tolerance bind us to 4chan of all places. OP is right, nothing of value would be lost.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Banzai51@midwest.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Problem is, it won’t stop with 4chan.

    source
  • Flax_vert@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I didn’t even think it was accessible? I tried accessing it donkeys ago and my ISP had it blocked. Maybe there was a parental control enabled or something. Who knows.

    source
• iii@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Ss always, 4chan good guys

  source

  • AcesFullOfKings@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    [deleted]

    source

    • RedPandaRaider@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Neutral is very generous for a nazi and pedophile board.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • a_wild_mimic_appears@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Since “chaotic neutral” includes the mentally deranged and insane, your description is apt.

      source
    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      mainly they are a lot less relevant nowadays than they used to be, it used to be (late 2000s, early 2010s) that a lot of Internet culture came originally from 4chan memes, no longer the case

      source
  • cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    sarcasm?

    source
• Flax_vert@feddit.uk ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Weird idea: what if the government set up a system where the website will be blocked unless you verify your age with gov.uk? And anyone trying to get to it will have to pass by gov.uk tokens first. Although https might make that difficult.

  Of course, I fully disagree with the OSA. But it’s… An alternative.

  source

  • t3rmit3@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    But why do that when they can just shift the burden onto the other party (the website), and demand money from them too?

    source
• fwygon@beehaw.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  In this case; the UK is reaching too far. Genuinely speaking; they don’t have the right to fine you if you don’t live or operate in that country. 4chan never did have any legal presence in the UK; even if it did accept ‘donations’ from UK citizens.

  At worst; the UK can block 4chan from being accessed in their country and seize any money sent to 4chan by their citizenry in the future. I doubt anyone would care if that’s what they did.

  The US specifically even states in it’s constitution that no citizen shall have laws imposed on them by another country that restrict their freedoms.

  source