[ben_w]

> I don't like the far right cesspool of 4chan, but can't disagree with their position that they shouldn't have to care about OFCOM.

While I agree with this statement, I thought there was some kind of requirement that OFCOM goes through a process like this before being allowed to ask for a domain to be blocked in the UK?

The latter is, I think, something OFCOM should be allowed to do with a restriction that it can only come after other options fail.

[pjc50]

Oh, it's much more stupid than that: OFCOM can't block websites, I just checked and it's available on my phone right now. They've issued a fine to 4chan instead. Which they are ignoring.

Imgur have gone the other direction: they have voluntarily blocked the UK (!), which is very irritating when trying to browse Reddit.

There's certainly a process, but not a good one.

(separate from all this, the Internet Watch Foundation maintains a blocklist which ISPs voluntarily follow, of actual CSAM.)

[ben_w]

> OFCOM can't block websites, I just checked and it's available on my phone right now.

Until the process is complete, that's not evidence of inability, that's just the process:

  Where appropriate, if a provider fails to comply with its safety duties, we can also seek a court order for ‘business disruption measures’, such as requiring payment providers or advertisers to withdraw their services from a platform, or requiring Internet Service Providers to block a site in the UK.

- https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...

> There's certainly a process, but not a good one.

Indeed. There does seem to be a mutual non-comprehension of how the internet functions amongst lawmakers and enforcers in both the UK and the USA; both seem to act like they have more sovereignty over the internet than is possible without reaching much faster for a block order for sites outside their respective jurisdictions.