The online message board’s lawyers say that UK safety laws don’t apply outside the UK. This basic principle may soon be tested in court.
There are already a lot of products and services created to block adult material. Instead of wasting millions of dollars and thousands of hours of human power, they could’ve made a law to opt-in to these services at the service provider level.
For example, in this situation, nearly all blocking services would block 4chan.
They tried that. Don’t underestimate the progress already made towards building the Great Firewall of Britain. I guess the main problem was that when the blocking was optional, too many people chose to opt out.
Wow so many people disagreed that it flipped. Almost like people don’t want it
Yea, but don’t you see, wee need to protect the kids.
right right right, you’re right, please take away my privacy to help parents not need to parent their children!!!
Your privacy is not as important as childrens safety on the interwebs. What do you think happens if they grow up and see media that isn’t government licensed.
First off thank you for the info. Second what comes next is not directed towards you.
SO WHAT THE FUCK IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM THEN?!
then ban 4chan in the uk. nothing of value would be lost.
How does one ban a website within a geographical border? Isn’t that censorship?
Ip blocking at state ran/sponsored networking level. But censorship is the point of the age verification law so that would be their end goal.
The first part is a technical question and the second part a definition one.
For the how to: the most common approach is to simply blacklist their IPs on a provider basis. This leads to no provider that obeys your blacklists to allow their users traffic to that target. Usually all providers in a nation obey that nations law (I assume, I only know that for my own :D)
For the censorship: I don’t like that word because it’s implications fan be used against any and all laws. A shitload of content is made inaccessible because it breaks laws from active coordination of attacks to human trafficking. All of this can be described as censorship.
Forthe UK law it’s… I’m not British and to me it appears to be a vague tool to silence and control all types of content under the guise of protecting children. Not with the intention to protect or prevent something but with the intent to control. I would fully understand and emphasize with using the word censorship in this context.
4chan has been all too eager to spread Russian propaganda for over a decade, and has been a festering sore on the internet even longer still. I wouldn’t let the paradox of tolerance bind us to 4chan of all places. OP is right, nothing of value would be lost.
Banning 4chan for that reason would be valid if they had a law against that to enforce.
But in the same way you don’t go after someone for tax evasion in a country they’ve never been to or interacted with, you don’t fine 4chan because they won’t start collecting IDs from users when the company is not even in your jurisdiction.
Either way, I can’t imagine people there missing 4chan. They just need to give a valid reason to block it instead of BSing a fine.
As always, 4chan good guys
deleted by creator
Neutral is very generous for a nazi and pedophile forum.
To be fair, both of those seem to be elements of our highest and most successful leadership in the US. I see pedo nazis praised on TV every day.
Since “chaotic neutral” includes the mentally deranged and insane, your description is apt. But for once I agree with 4chan - if the UK don’t want to see it, they will have to close their eyes.
mainly they are a lot less relevant nowadays than they used to be, it used to be (late 2000s, early 2010s) that a lot of Internet culture came originally from 4chan memes, no longer the case
sarcasm?
