4Chan mocks £520k fine for UK online safety breaches (bbc.com)
103 points by mosura 5 hours ago
dijit 2 hours ago
The response from Ofcom doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
If you are to sell a toy in the UK you must be a British company. (and must pay VAT and comply with British safety standards).
If a consumer buys from overseas and imports a product then they do not have British consumer protections. Which is why so much aliexpress electrical stuff is dangerous (expecially USB chargers) yet it continues to be legally imported.
Just, no british retailer would be allowed to carry it without getting a fine.
3rodents 31 minutes ago
That’s not really true. The Ofcom representative said “not allowed” not “unable to”. Even if cocaine is legal in my country, I’m “not allowed” to sell it to British consumers by the power of the British authorities. The British authorities may not have legal authority in my jurisdiction but they can take action in their own, including issuing penalties and stopping my deliveries at the border.
miohtama 6 minutes ago
But are you allowed to post pictures of your cocaine on a website that is not in the UK?
DevKoala 8 minutes ago
That sounds so gross. Why do British people tolerate that? It’s as if British people belong to their government.
oliwarner 22 minutes ago
But if a Brit comes to your country and buys cocaine from you, in person, you wouldn't expect to be convicted as a dealer in the UK.
Ofcom has a bad handle on web requests. Clients connect out. 4chan et al aren't pushing their services in anyone in the UK.
3rodents 18 minutes ago
tokyobreakfast an hour ago
The US CBP routinely intercepts "dangerous" products. I assume the Brits have the same.
It's a wonder why AliExpress flies under the radar. I assume it's impossible to keep up with it all.
The UK's comically over-engineered electrics are no match for some of these plug-in-and-die sketchy USB chargers from the Far East.
DiodesGoneWild on YouTube does teardowns of many of these incredibly poorly constructed deathtraps.
ge96 6 minutes ago
I remember I bought some pills online one time (neutroopics type) they came from like India and were intercepted by customs/I got a letter. It's funny my roommate at the time bought em and didn't get intercepted so was odd.
In hindsight it is dumb to buy random pills and take em.
strideashort 15 minutes ago
And by extension, the UK is free to implement His Majesty’s Greatest Firewall of the UK should they wish to control what is imported.
mosura 5 minutes ago
refulgentis an hour ago
Commenting on Europe has gotten really lax the last year or so. People kinda will just say whatever pops into their head and it’s some drive-by claim that they haven’t thought about for a second past it popping into their head, presumably because it’s become normalized. (i.e. “but everyone knows Europe goes too far”)
Sometimes it self resolves - as you contributed here, yes, countries limit and interfere and fine other countries businesses, all the time!
I don’t know what yours means though. What electrics are made in the UK? How are they over engineered?
tokyobreakfast 37 minutes ago
crtasm an hour ago
Is it correct to say the consumer is importing a product when it's aliexpress shipping it to them?
nvme0n1p1 an hour ago
Of course. What situation are you imagining where a country imports a product without the seller shipping the product to that country?
helsinkiandrew 35 minutes ago
Particularly if AliExpress is paying local VAT and import taxes (or at least dealing with the import paperwork) or even less if it’s from one of their local (UK/EU etc) warehouses
reisse an hour ago
Unless AliExpress has a local entity, like they do in some countries, yes.
john_strinlai an hour ago
yes, aliexpress would not be shipping it if the consumer did not order it.
john_strinlai 2 hours ago
>However, a lawyer representing the company - which has previously said it won't pay such fines - has responded to the demand with an AI-generated cartoon image of a hamster.
>The latest image is not the first picture of a hamster lawyers for 4chan have sent in reply to Ofcom
amazing. same energy as the pirate bay telling dreamworks to sodomize themselves. i cant help but laugh at the absurdness of it.
aydyn 33 minutes ago
Unlike TPB founders who were convicted in 2009 because copyright infringement also violates swedish law, the 4chan lawyers are correct that they are breaking no U.S. law. 1A provides broad protections.
VladVladikoff 28 minutes ago
The letter sent by the lawyer in response: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HDwtXYaWAAA-u0l?format=jpg&name=...
rconti 2 hours ago
> "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.
So the UK plans to fine Parisian bars that serve alcohol to British under-18s in France on holiday?
Aloisius 20 minutes ago
I'm not sure one needs to stretch the analogy this far.
If someone from the UK calls me on the phone and I start reading them posts on 4chan, is the UK going to fine me too?
ceejayoz 2 hours ago
This is more like the UK fining Parisian bars that courier alcohol to under-18s in the UK.
tsukikage an hour ago
More like the UK fining US porn publishers for not stopping British kids searching through the hedges in their street
strideashort 26 minutes ago
Not exactly.
It’s like fining Parisian bars to hand over alcohol to couriers without checking to whom couriers will deliver it.
Couriers = all involved network providers.
shrubble 2 hours ago
It’s a lot more like banning the importation of books and newspapers that the government doesn’t agree with…
shaky-carrousel 2 hours ago
Which is equally absurd.
OJFord 2 hours ago
OJFord 2 hours ago
In theory the children are committing a crime yes, but obviously enforcement is extremely low; left mainly to their teachers.
I don't think UK law governs foreign companies' overseas operations based on the nationality of the customer though, no.
dijit 2 hours ago
They’re not breaking any law.
Laws apply to actions in the country, they’re not based on citizenship.
If you go to Amsterdam and sleep with a hooker, you didn’t break a law by doing that: despite prostitution (specifically purchasing sex) being illegal in many western countries.
OJFord 4 minutes ago
cjbgkagh an hour ago
dec0dedab0de 2 hours ago
pearlsontheroad 2 hours ago
rjsw an hour ago
France can fine Parisian bars that serve alcohol to under-18s itself.
gadders an hour ago
If it wasn't for 4Chan, we might never have solved the Haruhi problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpermutation#Lower_bounds,...
I used to go on a curated version of 4Chan via Telegram. Yes there is a lot of racism (although it flies in every direction, between every ethnicity you could imagine) but there is also (due to the anonymous nature) some genuinely interesting discussions. I remember one thread about aircraft carriers being of no use being debated by US and UK submarine officers.
There are also some genuinely funny bits. There was a guy in Greece who had found out that as long as he never graduated, he could live a basic life for free at university. His nickname was Dormogenes.
john_strinlai an hour ago
there is a great clickhole headline that your comment reminds me of
"Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point"
4chan has produced some hilarious/interesting stuff, and they have also driven people to suicide. i suppose it is up to everyone individually to make the value judgement there.
nvme0n1p1 an hour ago
Replace "4chan" with "humanity in general" and your statement still holds true.
BobaFloutist 11 minutes ago
john_strinlai an hour ago
jmkni 16 minutes ago
Getting flashbacks to the letters the Pirate Bay used to send lawyers
https://www.scribd.com/document/117922444/the-pirate-bay-res...
I'm pretty sure in one they responded saying their lawyer was alseep in a ditch and would reply when he woke up lol
patates 2 hours ago
It would be marvelous if they used a drawing of a spider.
internet2000 2 hours ago
Let kids go to 4chan. I frequented it and turned out fine.
patates 2 hours ago
I used to hang out there too. However, describing me as 'fine' would require a lengthy debate over definitions.
throwpoaster 2 hours ago
The problem is you're getting downvoted by the people who didn't.
akramachamarei 2 hours ago
Bold to assume downvoters vote on first-hand knowledge.
gorgoiler 2 hours ago
Meanwhile Google.com shows all manner of depravity if you click “safe search: off”.
I realize there’s a carve out in the legislation for search engines but if the goal is to stop little Timmy finding pictures of an X being Yd up the Z then it is a resolute failure.
The only thing that works with children is transparency and accountability, be that the school firewall or a ban on screen use in secret.
”screens where I can see ‘em!”
AJRF an hour ago
This is all just theatre to justify a ban right?
DroneBetter an hour ago
> Last month Pornhub restricted access to its website in the UK, blaming the introduction of stricter age checks, and said its traffic had fallen by 77%.
assumedly the rate of consumption hasn't dramatically changed, so the OSA's immediate result has been either the decentralisation of porn providers (towards those small enough to dodge the law for now and be less exacting) or the mass adoption of proxies; I assume the former is the path of least resistance
this is notably the opposite of the feared outcome (which I suspect may be closer to the long-term effect) that the bar to meet the requirements would be so high (possibly involving hiring a lawyer) that smaller social/porn sites get regulated out of existence (see ie. https://lobste.rs/s/ukosa1/uk_users_lobsters_needs_your_help...)
ChrisArchitect 15 minutes ago
Related:
Ofcom has today fined 4chan £450k for not having age checks in place
bpodgursky 2 hours ago
It does seem like if the UK wants to do content filtration (blocking noncompliant websites) they will need to own up to it and set up a China-style firewall, rather than hoping they can badger the service providers into doing it for them.
Retr0id 2 hours ago
Yes, this is part of the consent manufacturing process.
kleene_op 2 hours ago
That's the plan. But if they do it right away people will revolt.
vasco 2 hours ago
People used to tell kids to not go to a shady part of town while they spent their afternoons outside unsupervised. Can parents not tell kids to not go to certain websites? We still went to the shady part of town and the kids will still go to 4chan but at least we don't need to give away freedoms. Such erosion of freedom for the common person because parents can't have an awkward conversation is irritating.
FridayoLeary an hour ago
I'm moving away from that line of thinking. We can discuss how poorly formulated this law is, and the implications for privacy of internet control bills, and the resulting eroding of our freedom of speech. It's correct to be suspicous of attempts to regulate the internet. But I'm becoming increasingly convinced that "for the sake of the children" such measures are necessary. The reality is that most kids these days have basically zero restrictions on internet exposure, and it's frying their brains[1]. Casual warnings from parents won't cut it. Not that they don't have the ultimate responsibility, but as in every other area of child rearing, they need help from the wider society they live in.
[1] I'm not going to quote studies, but plenty exist. I think it's pretty self evident to everyone here how bad internet can be for the mental health even of adults, let alone children with developing minds.
rocqua 6 minutes ago
So the solution is effective parental controls. Government mandated age verification isn't parental control, and is unlikely to be very effective.
That means making it possible for parents to actively block bad websites, and making that hard to circumvent.
ranger_danger a minute ago
Hard disagree. I think the control should stay with the parents where it already is. They can decide whether or not to put protections in place or whether or not to hand them a device at all.
We don't put protections on kids walking out the front door, and there's plenty of theoretical dangers there too. Let the parents educate their children.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2 hours ago
Do you have children?
mapotofu 2 hours ago
I do. I also grew up on 4chan because I didn’t have an involved parent, and I lived in the suburbs where finding friends to just “go outside and play” wasn’t an option. Consuming that content was genuinely hurtful and probably forever altered my psyche. I have the means and knowledge, in technical skill and life experience, to know how these things work, and protect my kids from that. Most people don’t.
huflungdung an hour ago
gleenn 2 hours ago
Raising children is hard but assuming everyone has to sacrifice their rights so your job is easier means everyone means everyone loses long term.
oarsinsync 2 hours ago
Or this should be done at point of sale, like we do with all controlled substances.
We don't sell bottles containing alcohol and then expect to filter the alcohol out if the child wants to drink from it. We have two different bottles: alcoholic bottles and non-alcoholic bottles. If you are a child, you cannot purchase the former.
Stop selling unrestricted computing devices to children. Require a person to be 18+ to purchase an unrestricted internet device. Make it clear that unrestricted internet access, like alcohol and nicotine (and the list goes on) is harmful to children. That resolves 90% of the problem.
And lets be fair, the problem isn't the children. Children want what all their peers have. The problem isn't their peers. The problem is the parents. Give the spineless parents a simpler way to say no to their children, and the overall problem goes away.
guelo an hour ago
There's always people that say it's the parents responsibility to monitor their kids. But as a parent, you either give your kids full access to the internet or nothing. The fault lies with the OS companies Google, Microsoft, Apple. They do a terrible job with parental controls. They make it very hard to setup, they're confusing and hard to use plus they barely work. I think they just do it as a checkbox for marketing or regulatory purposes. That's where I'd like to see regulation.
rstat1 an hour ago
OS makers should not be in the business of enforcing censorship. If you want to shield your children from the "horrors" of the internet either use proper parental control software, or don't allow access at all like you said until your kids are mature to understand what's going on
The onus is on the parent to the be parent. Not the tech industry, and especially not the government.
rocqua 2 minutes ago
If the solution is parental control software, that also puts onus on operating systems to present the means for such software to work properly. This does not mean the OS should censor, it might mean the OS offers a censorship interface.
At least we seem to agree the solution lies with better tools for parents.
guelo 29 minutes ago
Who are you to decide what should or should not be?
"proper parental control software" doesn't exist for a lot of the platforms.
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 6 minutes ago
The answer is a computer the child must sit down and use in front of the family. Steve Jobs ruined the world with the invention of the iPhone, and whoever else is responsible for the more generic smartphone. Now parents use one to quieten their children and governments use it to surveil us all.
chrisjj 4 hours ago
a lawyer representing the company - which has previously said it won't pay such fines - has responded to the demand with an AI-generated cartoon image of a hamster.
erelong 2 hours ago
"As they should"
josefritzishere 2 hours ago
The unpaywalled version on AOL https://www.aol.com/articles/us-messageboard-4chan-mocks-520...
wnevets 2 hours ago
You mean the message board that collab-ed with Epstein? Delete them from the internet.
mrtksn 16 minutes ago
Europeans are following the wrong path on regulating the internet. Instead of calling it internet safety and annoy people, they should just make those services and the people running them liable for the damages.
The same goes for the freedom of speech. Europeans should make it legal guarantee instead of trying to build walls around speech. So when X or 4Chan etc deletes a post, it may lead to freedom of speech fines if deletion wasn't justified. Tha same for the algorithm, if a post that doesn't break the rules is discriminated by the algorithm, a hefty fine should apply.
Suddenly we will have companies that keep their business clean and no claim for moral high ground.
LaurensBER 11 minutes ago
I agree but you have to understand that a lot of European (leaders) still have WW2 in the back of their head.
For them there're far worse things than giving up some freedoms.
One can agree or disagree with this but Europe's actions are far more understandable if you see where they're coming from.
From what it's worth, the younger generation doesn't seem to see this the same way so whatever censure Europe introduces today will most likely be temporary.