4chan fined $26K for refusing to assess risks under UK Online Safety Act
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
It comes down to how 4chan gets its money. If they genuinely don't do any business in the UK (no subscriptions or advertisers) they can ignore it, though they should be careful when travelling internationally.
Upvote
51
(54
/
-3)
I'll be honest, I thought 4chan had been replaced by 8chan or whatever bs had come after that.
Upvote
-10
(9
/
-19)
Of course we don't. To surrender our constitutional rights, we need threats from an FCC chair.
Upvote
102
(107
/
-5)
Never I thought I'd see the day where 4chan might actually "save the internet".
I need to lie down.
I need to lie down.
Upvote
39
(54
/
-15)
KrookedRooster
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
But appeasing and being deceived by our own power IS expected. Reasonably or not.
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
That's ‘the US Constitution’, yes? The constitution of the United States of America – a foreign country, yes?
I'm no fan of the OSA – bog-standard reasons, to do with it being a technical solution to a social problem, and vulnerable to getting into exactly this sort of trans-national wrangling – but I have negative amounts of sympathy with an argument that that particular bit of paper has any relevance at all to people outside that particular country's borders.
I could of course make this point somewhat more crudely, if that were 4chan's thing.
Upvote
20
(42
/
-22)
What a wild world we live in.
Though I thought 4Chan died when they had that massive hack.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
The OSA endangers the very people it's suppose to protect, by forcing documentation be uploaded to servers that might not be very secure. Being forced to upload your passport information for instance, along with your address, phone number, email, and other sensitive information to specific websites that declare it as a requirement for inkeeping with OSA, is very worrying.
Heck even if it was a government back and secured server, i'd still not trust those kind of details there, since the NHS itself has already been hacked at least 3 times. You can't trust the UK government with a digital copy of your information that's permanently connected to a public facing part of the internet.
Heck even if it was a government back and secured server, i'd still not trust those kind of details there, since the NHS itself has already been hacked at least 3 times. You can't trust the UK government with a digital copy of your information that's permanently connected to a public facing part of the internet.
Upvote
50
(53
/
-3)
These days 4chan isn't even that bad. Toxic, yes.. but not really a threat. If you don't like 4chan, you can just not use it. There is really no argument to ban it. No child is going to just randomly stumble upon 4chan, and one did.. he'd likely just quickly close the tab because its freaky.
Its just images and text. Guns and cars actually kill kids regularly. How many kids have died at the hands of 4chan?
Its just images and text. Guns and cars actually kill kids regularly. How many kids have died at the hands of 4chan?
Upvote
-11
(18
/
-29)
This is a classic case of protecting the speech of those you disagree with so as to protect the speech of us all.
I like that the article references the states in the US that have been passing age verification laws because it's just a different form of what the UK is trying to do here and it should be fought back against in equal measure too.
I like that the article references the states in the US that have been passing age verification laws because it's just a different form of what the UK is trying to do here and it should be fought back against in equal measure too.
Upvote
49
(53
/
-4)
While certainly not directly on point (this deals with a censorous foreign law, not private defamation claims) I'm a little surprised still that the article didn't mention the SPEECH Act of 2010 as an example of Congress relatively recently taking the issue of foreigners trying to infringe American rights fairly seriously. I don't think there is actually any risk of US courts enforcing a foreign judgement, but how much the lawsuit costs (the ever present "the process is the punishment" issue) may be something increasingly relevant. At any rate 4chan is certainly in the right of it in terms of UK trying to apply its law to a foreign site, and it's of general interest to the whole internet (Ars Technica is chock full of material illegal in authoritarian countries around the world for example). The UK is fully within its rights/powers naturally to do a domestic Great Firewall like China and restrict what people there may view on the internet, and to go after any domestic assets someone may have there. I don't think it's a good or moral idea, but they can. But they (and any other country) should be vigorously fought on any efforts to export that beyond their shores.
Upvote
14
(18
/
-4)
So it's not a censorship law, it's a law to silence dangerous websites. Totally different idea.
(just in case: /s)
Upvote
40
(42
/
-2)
My understanding was that generally foreign administrative fines are already unenforcable in the U.S, and simply being avaliable by having a site on the public internet is not enough to establish jurisdiction. It seems unlikely an entirely American based entity would be forced by U.S courts to comply with the demands of a foreign country for just existing on the public internet.
Last edited:
Upvote
22
(24
/
-2)
What do US constitutional rights have to do with a UK regulator? 4chan doesn't have to do anything in the US, they just have to comply with this law if they want to operate in the UK. I'm sure the law isn't good, but that's a separate argument.
Upvote
3
(22
/
-19)
I woke up feeling dehydrated this morning, didn't drink enough water yesterday. That must be why I'm having trouble summoning tears for 4chan and Kiwifarm.
But man ... these kinds of laws give me Big Pause. I get the intent. These forums are gross. I also believe their influence has been overblown, they're easy scapegoats for much larger problems.
But more importantly, it's always going to make me nervous when you hand politicians big levers. It's waaaay too easy for them to stick them into every crack they see.
The UK has been getting sketchy on trans issues. What happens when a forum gets cited for giving medical or surgical advice that could be read by minors and that sets off some do gooder's alarm?
The US government is a complete shitshow right now. Nobody would want Trump to have these tools. He and his lackeys are doing enough as it is. And no one in Europe should think they're immune to the same thing happening. You think it's a joke until it isn't, trust us.
Just good to be mindful that you don't give governments power that depends on them being "the good guys" to not abuse.
But man ... these kinds of laws give me Big Pause. I get the intent. These forums are gross. I also believe their influence has been overblown, they're easy scapegoats for much larger problems.
But more importantly, it's always going to make me nervous when you hand politicians big levers. It's waaaay too easy for them to stick them into every crack they see.
The UK has been getting sketchy on trans issues. What happens when a forum gets cited for giving medical or surgical advice that could be read by minors and that sets off some do gooder's alarm?
The US government is a complete shitshow right now. Nobody would want Trump to have these tools. He and his lackeys are doing enough as it is. And no one in Europe should think they're immune to the same thing happening. You think it's a joke until it isn't, trust us.
Just good to be mindful that you don't give governments power that depends on them being "the good guys" to not abuse.
Upvote
69
(73
/
-4)
This is a change of pace. Usually it is Democrats who find themselves defending some tremendous asshole who is probably guilty but is being charged under an unfair law. It will be interesting to see if this administration will go to bat for 4chan.
Otherwise I agree that it seems like the worst the Brits can do is attempt to block 4chan in their country. Those fines have no teeth.
Otherwise I agree that it seems like the worst the Brits can do is attempt to block 4chan in their country. Those fines have no teeth.
Upvote
1
(7
/
-6)
For a soley U.S based entity, the U.S Constitution and U.S law are the only thing enforcable and determine the extent Ofcom has authority to force compliance beyond blocking them in the U.K.
Last edited:
Upvote
27
(31
/
-4)
Also the country that 4chan is exclusively based out of, yes? It's the UK that is the foreign country here.
It has lots of relevance if you're trying to fine said people inside that particular country's borders however! Nobody denies that the UK can do their best to ban the site, or to arrest anyone involved with it should they ever set foot inside the UK. But if there is any effort to enforce a judgement anywhere else, American can get involved, and of course Americans are perfectly free to lobby our government to push back regardless. Just as the British are free (for now?) to lobby their government push on America, and then it comes down to domestic and geopolitical considerations. That's how international relations work?
Upvote
24
(29
/
-5)
The simplest answer is for the UK to just block them. I see no particular downside to someone being unable to access either of those sites.
Upvote
20
(23
/
-3)
There are other ways to verify age and sharing ID documents is only an option. Out of all the similar laws in the world that ask for sites/apps to verify age, OFCOM is quite flexible. The full list is at the bottom.
Open banking is best option as that uses information from the UK finance industry and it can purely come back with a simply verification saying if that individual is over 18. The individual would only be required to approve the sharing of that verifcation via their banks mobile app, which is the secuirty requirment.
Any company asking for passport information, I wouldn't trust considering all the other options that are available for verication that are more secure.
- Facial age estimation – you show your face via photo or video, and technology analyses it to estimate your age.
- Open banking – you give permission for the age-check service to securely access information from your bank about whether you are over 18. The age-check service then confirms this with the site or app.
- Digital identity services – these include digital identity wallets, which can securely store and share information which proves your age in a digital format.
- Credit card age checks – you provide your credit card details and a payment processor checks if the card is valid. As you must be over 18 to obtain a credit card this shows you are over 18.
- Email-based age estimation – you provide your email address, and technology analyses other online services where it has been used – such as banking or utility providers - to estimate your age.
- Mobile network operator age checks – you give your permission for an age-check service to confirm whether or not your mobile phone number has age filters applied to it. If there are no restrictions, this confirms you are over 18.
- Photo-ID matching – this is similar to a check when you show a document. For example, you upload an image of a document that shows your face and age, and an image of yourself at the same time – these are compared to confirm if the document is yours.
Upvote
-12
(8
/
-20)
Don't US companies censor stuff all the time to keep China happy? World of Warcraft, HALO, Fortnite, Paradox Interactive (several games), and quite a few others. These aren't the ones that were flat out banned as the developer didn't cave to make changes. Or do they not count as a foreign entity because of how much money the USA gets from them?
Upvote
1
(9
/
-8)
how does a company get arrested and set to jail?
I'm asking as a California who watched in dismay as a corporation on felony probation for blowing up a neighborhood and killing 5 people, burned entire towns to the ground, was found guilty of 85 counts of felony manslaughter, and did not get arrested.
Upvote
31
(32
/
-1)
That's how liberty and free speech works.
Nobody ever needs to protect speech about rainbows and puppy dogs. It's the distasteful things that they come for first that needs to be protected.
Upvote
18
(22
/
-4)
That's on those companies. They decided access to the Chinese market was more important than whatever changes where required.
Upvote
21
(22
/
-1)
There are many jurisdictions all with their own laws. We shouldn’t burden every website with the requirement to keep track of that every country’s laws are and decide who should be allowed to see their content.
The only reasonable outcome in this case is that ISPs in the UK should block 4chan.
Edit: and just to be clear, the UK blocking 4chan is a totally fine and reasonable outcome. 4chan is a mostly US entity, our laws and UK laws might just be incompatible, they shouldn’t have to let our content through , especially if it is odious stuff.
Last edited:
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
It seems unreasonable to be bound by every country's laws just because you have a website unless you make an effort to block the country in question specifically. If the UK wants to block 4chan that's it's prerogative I suppose. But claiming authority to issue fines and imprison anyone who has a website seems like overreach.
What I'm unclear on is number 2 on your list. How exactly are they in the UK? If it's nothing more than the fact that their website is accessible in the UK Ofcom should be told to go pound sand. But you're right that the constitutional arguments are just nutty.
Upvote
17
(20
/
-3)
Upvote
13
(15
/
-2)
So, someone somewhere does have your information. They will then also have that information based on what website you are trying to gain access to (Tommy allowed us to provide verification to 4Chan or whoever). If the government wants to connect the dots, they most certainly can and will. You cannot provide age verification anonymously on the internet.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
UK's bat, UK's wickets, UK's pitch, for better or worse.
Or maybe another analogy: sometimes the locals are going to be rather insistent you surf on their terms. If you don't like it, find a different beach.
Upvote
-18
(6
/
-24)
So what about people who don't have a bank account? Tourists, immigrants (of certain statuses), and the homeless would have issues opening a bank account.
What stops me from scanning someone else's face?
See first reply.
See first reply, but also emails can be faked or sold, or just given away for free.
? If there is an age filter already on the device.. whats the point?
Seems easy to fake.
Upvote
14
(16
/
-2)
“the article” said:
It looks like 4chan is asking a US court to intervene. Spitballing, but I suspect they are not actually worried about whatever the UK decides to do, but more worried about whether the US will force them to comply somehow, presumably due to treaties and other international concerns. If we signed a treaty that asks the government to do something unconstitutional, the constitution wins, I’m pretty sure.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
Anton Longshot
Ars Praetorian
In my opinion ALL the options you mention are unsafe if not downright scary.
No single company or organization has only honest trustworthy people working for them and even if they do (fat chance), PEOPLE CHANGE.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Sure, it's their bat/wickets/pitch, but the actual game is being played in the USA. The UK can block if they deem necessary, but under no means does 4Chan have to comply with foreign laws if they only have a presence in the USA.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
The UK regulator would generally request that a US court enforce the fine since those organisations likely have no valuable assets in the UK. I'm not sure what the status of such or what treaties or agreements exist in that respect but presumably the lawsuit 4chan has filed is looking for a declaratory (in advance of) judgment from a US court that this fine will not be enforced once it is issued.
End result if they win is the UK can do nothing to actually enforce payment of the fine, but is free to (and hopefully will) block the sites in the UK and sanction any culpable employees who enter the jurisdiction.
Last edited:
Upvote
14
(15
/
-1)
Looks like the article was updated, plus it doesn't mean they would owe that. It's actually, "fines totaling about $23 million or 10 percent of 4chan’s worldwide turnover, whichever is higher.".
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
