[deaddodo]

As shown in that same article, they also responded:

>>>

"Companies – wherever they're based – are not allowed to sell unsafe toys to children in the UK. And society has long protected youngsters from things like alcohol, smoking and gambling. The digital world should be no different," she said.

"The UK is setting new standards for online safety. Age checks and risk assessments are cornerstones of our laws, and we'll take robust enforcement action against firms that fall short."

<<<

Quite frankly she seems completely out of touch with her own argument. The UK can certainly legislate away tobacco sales, for instance; they can't go after tobacco producers in a foreign state. 4Chan operates in the US and is a US company. They have no jurisdiction over it, even if their citizenry can access it; it's on them to block that access if they don't like it. Unless they're also implying that the US government should be allowed to go after UK companies that don't follow it's free speech regulations because American citizens can access them.

[comex]

> Unless they're also implying that the US government should be allowed to go after UK companies that don't follow it's free speech regulations because American citizens can access them.

Precedent in the US is that courts do in fact have jurisdiction over a foreign website's owner if the owner "purposefully availed itself of the U.S. forum or purposefully directed its activities toward it", a test which is less demanding than it sounds. [1]

And US has taken advantage of this to go after foreign websites such as Megaupload, BTC-e, Liberty Reserve, etc.

Therefore, if there were a US law requiring companies to follow free speech rules, it could potentially be enforced against foreign website owners. But no such law currently exists. The First Amendment itself only applies to the US government (and to companies working on behalf of the US government). There is also the SPEECH Act, which, among other provisions, creates a cause of action where if someone sues a US person in a foreign court over their speech, they can sue back in US court. But only for declaratory judgement, not damages or an injunction. The goal is mainly just to prevent US courts from enforcing judgements from the foreign court in such cases.

[1] https://tlblog.org/how-to-find-personal-jurisdiction-over-fo...

[bigfatkitten]

> even if their citizenry can access it; it's on them to block that access if they don't like it

Not even China and North Korea whine about or send fake “fines” to offshore entities. They just block their sites and move on with life.

[lmm]

> Not even China and North Korea whine about or send fake “fines” to offshore entities. They just block their sites and move on with life.

On the contrary, both of those are very active in going after people who operate websites they don't like from overseas, and/or their family members (who are often easier to get at). They just don't publish legal notices around it.

[spacedcowboy]

[sigh] and this is the first (mandated) step in that process. The UK don’t expect 4chan to pay the fine, which means, once the period to pay has expired, they’ll just be blocked instead.

[bigfatkitten]

They could skip that step entirely if the relevant legislation was people with even a general grasp of geography and how the Internet works.

[pc86]

Yes but this is British legislation so that Venn diagram is two non-overlapping circles.

[gnfargbl]

Speaking as a UK citizen: you're exactly right. If the UK wants to prevent 4chan from being imported into the UK then it needs to block it at the border as it would for physical goods.

The fact that's technically hard to do (at least without going full-on CCP) doesn't change the situation. Attempting to fine a foreign entity for doing something that breaks no laws in the foreign entity's jurisdiction is just risible.

[cm2187]

And we shall call it "the Great Firewall of the UK".

It is amazing that these guys don't see the irony of monkeying totaliterian states policies, in term of surveillance and censorship.

[bigfatkitten]

The UK, like Australia and many of its other offshoots has always had a bit of a totalitarian streak.

[bigmealbigmeal]

They’re going to keep ignoring these issues because the wrong people are pointing them out. The enemy must always be wrong.

Tribalism is awful for societies. There’s a reason Russia put so much effort into amplifying it in the west.

[tokyobreakfast]

So, the Great FUK for short?

[InterlooperX]

If only it were isolated to the UK. I know a website that does not hold content itself but rather links to other sites. Basically exactly what google does.

And yet, me sitting in Germany suddenly saw a nice banned notice when trying to access the site claiming this is because of "a high court verdict yadayadaya".

Why on earth do I now find ways around a UK court order to unblock a website when I am nowhere near their country? They should at least try and keep things within their jurisdiction.

[thunderfork]

It's very much a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. "It's an import", so they have to respond to it like they'd respond to imports...

But unlike physical imports, there's a sense that blocking these imports is an affront to base philosophical freedom in a way that prohibiting physical imports isn't.

[akersten]

> there's a sense that blocking these imports is an affront to base philosophical freedom in a way that prohibiting physical imports isn't.

It would serve UK legislators well to explore that tingling sense some more before they consider any further efforts in this direction, but that's just my two pence.

[fauigerzigerk]

UK ISPs do block some domains though.

[gnfargbl]

Which does nothing to block 4chan, because everyone knows what a VPN is and how to get one.

[dmix]

The same UK politicians are now pushing to block VPNs. Hence the great firewall talk which they are trying to skirt by fining US companies.

[fauigerzigerk]

Right, but it shows their mindset. They're not letting China comparisons stop them from doing anything. It's not about the technology. In their mind, it's about the purpose and the legitimacy of any censorship.

[frostiness]

Unlike other websites though, VPNs are generally banned from posting on 4chan, which would definitely hurt traffic.

[cocoto]

Yes but the number of 4chan passes would skyrocket to be able to post with a VPN.

[drcongo]

I hope they do block it.

[umpalumpaaa]

Well the US government / prosecutors go after people who break their laws all the time… eg. Kim .Com, etc

[egorfine]

> The UK is setting new standards for online safety.

Keyword: "The UK".

> cornerstones of our laws

Keyword: "our laws".

> and we'll take robust enforcement action

Enforcement action can only take place within the jurisdiction (with a notable exception of the US which doesn't give a single fuck about someone else's law).

[christkv]

Their goal is to create a presedent so they can start applying it to platforms they don't like. Its happening all over Europe not just the UK and the plan is clear. They want to repress discourse that is not officially sanctioned.

[deaddodo]

They can try to set whatever precedent they like. But US courts won't accept the argument, so it'll just stay a fee that accumulates on some paper ledger.

[ls612]

And then the children of the admin are traveling somewhere and get yoinked as leverage by the UK/EU/Brazil/Whoever and all of the legal arguments in the world won't do you any good. There is only one law that matters in the real world as much as so many westerners want to put their head in the sand about it.

[whatever1]

The real goal it to start banning US sites like fb,aws etc so that Europe starts building their own

[zer00eyz]

> Europe starts building their own

They have had decades to do this. They have not.

Risk aversion and Regulation are the heart of the issue.

Same things that have flattened the American housing market for the last 30 years.

[whatever1]

They did not because they were in the honeymoon with the US. They were buying weapons and expensive American services in exchange for security. This era is over.

Today building social network or a cloud provider is a trivial exercise. If the financial incentive is there (aka ban of US services), they will pop out like mushrooms.

[christkv]

Nah fb, aws etc will comply. They have no spine.

[Bender]

I believe the onus would be on countries outside of the US to block 4chan no different than China having to block a site in their great firewall for making a picture of Xi looking like Winnie the Pooh.

[chrisjj]

> 4Chan operates in the US

And the UK... each time it delivers there.

[wat10000]

I disagree. It's no different from selling to a foreign buyer by sending the product in the mail. You're not doing business in their country, and it's the buyer's responsibility to adhere to their local laws about imports, not yours.

[richwater]

The UK can block whatever they want if they'd like to become an authoritarian firewall state.

But they have no legal basis to fine 4chan.

[369548684892826]

Surely they do have the legal basis, that's how the fine got issued. What they're missing is any way to enforce it.

[philipallstar]

What legal basis?

[chrisjj]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Act_2023

The Online Safety Act 2023[1][2][3] (OSA) (c. 50) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to regulate online content. It was passed on 26 October 2023 and gives the relevant secretary of state the power to designate, suppress, and record a wide range of online content that they deem illegal or harmful to children.[4][5]

[anigbrowl]

Don't give up your day job.

[chrisjj]

Too late. I did that years ago!

[vorpalhex]

4Chan has blocked the entire UK IP range. They do not host any infrastructure there.

They are bound by UK law exactly as much as they are bound by Venutian or Mars law.

[akersten]

> 4Chan has blocked the entire UK IP range.

And honestly this is more than they really should even have to do. I think it does go above their obligation. They're doing Offcom a favor here, they don't even have to figure out how to block it themselves.

[1317]

> 4Chan has blocked the entire UK IP range

this isn't true

[JonChesterfield]

Nope. A direct connection from residential British Telecom line is fine.