this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2025
89 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

39996 readers
285 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/35889767

Comments

TextBYRNE & STORM, P.C.

ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW

Re: Statement Regarding Ofcom's Reported Provisional Notice - 4chan Community Support LLC

Byrne & Storm, P.C. ( @ByrneStorm ) and Coleman Law, P.C. ( @RonColeman ) represent 4chan Community Support LLC ("4chan").

According to press reports, the U.K. Office of Communications ("Ofcom") has issued a provisional notice under the Online Safety Act alleging a contravention by 4chan and indicating an intention to impose a penalty of £20,000, plus daily penalties thereafter.

4chan is a United States company, incorporated in Delaware, with no establishment, assets, or operations in the United Kingdom. Any attempt to impose or enforce a penalty against 4chan will be resisted in U.S. federal court.

American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an e-mail. Under settled principles of U.S. law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes.

If necessary, we will seek appropriate relief in U.S. federal court to confirm these principles.

United States federal authorities have been briefed on this matter.

The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, was reportedly warned by the White House to cease targeting Americans with U.K. censorship codes (according to reporting in the Telegraph on July 30th).

Despite these warnings, Ofcom continues its illegal campaign of harassment against American technology firms. A political solution to this matter is urgently required and that solution must come from the highest levels of American government.

We call on the Trump Administration to invoke all diplomatic and legal levers available to the United States to protect American companies from extraterritorial censorship mandates.

Our client reserves all rights.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 12 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I can't believe I'm agreeing with 4chan INC (or whatever the company is called). This whole situation is a mess. So many jurisdictions want to force age verification. I am a from believer that pushing laws to force "adult" content sites to have a standardized set of tags that parental controls can block will be way better. More beneficial to actually concerned parents (not fear mongering adults), safer for visitors to these sites by not forcing them to send their ID to a place that may mishandle it, safer for everyone by not making it normal to submit your ID to websites (think of the phishing opportunities), and more convenient for everyone.

I mean, for fuck's sake, a woman got arrested in Georgia for leaving the house while her child was playing outside. We expect parents to know where their children are every moment of every day but just throw our hands up and say "there's nothing I can do" when it comes to the net? It should be parents' responsibility to block such content, and requiring standardized tags across jurisdictions would make this easier.

Maybe don't let minors get full, unblocked access to the Internet.

[–] reksas@sopuli.xyz 11 points 14 hours ago

kids are just handy excuse that appeals to the masses. Getting more control over people is the goal.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 54 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

On one hand, 4chan (miraculously) has a point. They do not have a presence in the UK. They just serve traffic to it. Fining them for not following UK law makes no sense, and 4chan should tell them to pound sand.

On the other hand, if this were merely "we'll block you in our country unless you do X", then I do think notifying them ahead of time would be common courtesy. If the "violating" website sends them back a picture of tubgirl or something, then that's your answer.

This really comes down to national sovereignty. The UK can't force US businesses with no presence in the UK to play by the UK's rules, and the US can't stop the UK from blocking external businesses from serving the UK for not complying with their rules (as dumb as the rules are).

[–] Microw@piefed.zip -1 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

They serve users in the UK, therefore they can be fined. There is an established way to not get fined by governments of states whose markets you operate in: get out of that market. Block traffic from the UK. It is not the country's obligation to block, it is the company's. This has been already played out over the years in courts.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 11 points 12 hours ago

Websites have no way to know where a user is located. They can only use heuristics to predict a user's location. Such a law would be unenforceable anyway because 4chan can just tell the UK to blow themselves and there's nothing the UK can do in US territory except politely ask Trump to ship them to Europe.

[–] festus@lemmy.ca 5 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

they can be fined.

Sounds like no? How are they going to make a company with no assets or staff in the UK pay the fine? American courts likely won't enforce it.

[–] Microw@piefed.zip 2 points 9 hours ago

I mean, the state can fine them, they just can't execute that if the owner company of 4chan truly has no assets in the UK.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org 5 points 11 hours ago

This is also hilariously relevant with export-controlled GPUs in China. GamersNexus put out a great video on it recently, but basically in China there's no laws preventing someone from buying or selling the GPUs (despite the US's attempts to block it), so entire above-ground businesses operate on selling these GPUs, even providing their own warranties and support.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 44 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

~2006: haha can you believe it? China and Thailand and other such countries are blocking sites like Google, Wikipedia, YouTube, etc. because there's stuff on there that their governments don't like, how awfully authoritarian of them to think that their laws apply to everyone in the world, we liberal democracies in the west are a lot better than that fortunately

2025:

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 6 points 14 hours ago

I get that the joke is that "look at what's happening now" but it can also be interpreted as the government censoring the rest of your post. Very lenticular!

[–] Microw@piefed.zip -1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The difference is that the UK is not blocking sites. Sites are blocking the UK.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 11 hours ago

In the particular story that this thread is about, neither is happening: the UK is fining a site. I admit that it's not exactly the same thing; the point is that it's the same concept of national governments believing they have any business at all enforcing their laws on foreign websites.

[–] BlueEther@no.lastname.nz 30 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

I don't know who to wish to fail more; OFCOM or 4Chan

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 16 points 20 hours ago

I know I want Ofcom to lose. I am indifferent to losses suffered by 4chan.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] StenSaksTapir@feddit.dk 15 points 21 hours ago

That's full circle, since the current administration was basically grown in the lab called 4Chan.

[–] thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe 25 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

God help me when I'm barracking for 4chan

[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 7 points 22 hours ago

they're clearly not good if they're listing their twitter handles in official legal documents

[–] purplemonkeymad@programming.dev 9 points 21 hours ago

I don't think ofcom expect to get any money. It's either to just be a precursor to requiring a DNS/ip block by isps. Or just as they have told that they have to do this anyway.

[–] PonyOfWar@pawb.social 11 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I guess we'll see how that goes, but with similar age verification laws currently being introduced across the US, it seems like it soon won't make much of a difference.

[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 7 points 22 hours ago

And apparently enforcement of foreign judgements in the US is state-by-state, and the US state doesn't need personal jurisdiction over the person. So any US state court can decide to recognise a foreign jurisdiction, under local state laws, and all other states will recognise it. So if OFCOM can find one state that will recognise the judgement, then they are in trouble.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 10 points 22 hours ago

UK stretching its ol' colonial muscles again.

[–] Steve@startrek.website 3 points 20 hours ago (2 children)
[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 11 hours ago

It's distilled essence runs the modern Republican Party, fam.

[–] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 15 hours ago

Never read a greentext before?

!greentext@lemmy.ml

load more comments
view more: next ›