Why should that be their problem?
Comment on 4chan fined $26K for refusing to assess risks under UK Online Safety Act
9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoThen 4chan shouldn’t do business in the UK by selling 4chan passes there.
4chan should just block UK IPs.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Because they’re doing business in that region.
troed@fedia.io 3 weeks ago
Isn't it people in the UK that go to a US company and do business there?
9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Not with the internet. 4chan uses a payment processor that allows UK residents to pay with UK currency.
dubyakay@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Maybe UK payments processors should bar purchases of 4chan passes then.
9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
They will definitely do that soon if 4chan doesn’t respond to the Ofcom’s demands.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Imagine for a moment that 4chan is a business that sells alcoholic beverages in the US. Now imagine the UK has instituted prohibition and banned the consumption of alcohol.
now, some enterprising individuals have taken it upon themselves to buy, smuggle, and then sell those beverages inside the UK.
Clearly, the government has intended to ban the consumption of alcohol, not the sale of it.
Now the UK government is trying to shackle hefty fines against an American company for having the “audacity” of selling a product to an individual within the confines of the US.
again, the UK banned the consumption of alcohol, not the sale of. 4Chan isn’t forcing UK citizens to drink the alcohol. They are simply selling the product, within their country of origin, to individuals who want to purchase it.
now, do you still think the UK government has a right to fine 4chan or do you think maybe the UK government should elaborate on their prohibition regulations to ensure their citizens are properly “protected”?
9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Okkkkkay so I’ll play your hypothetical game.
So in your scenario here, 4chan starts off by smuggling alcohol into the UK. By definition according to Merriam-Webster, smuggling is: “to import or export secretly contrary to the law and especially without paying duties imposed by law”.
According to UK laws, this has the following consequences:
Penalties for Drug Smuggling The legal consequences of drug smuggling in the United Kingdom are robust and intricate. These penalties are designed to deter and punish those involved in the illicit trade of controlled substances, and they vary significantly depending on the nature and scale of the offense. Prison Sentences Convictions for drug smuggling can result in substantial prison sentences. The duration of imprisonment varies based on factors such as the type and quantity of drugs involved, the defendant’s role in the operation, and any previous criminal history. For Class A drugs like heroin or cocaine, sentences can range from several years to life imprisonment. The courts take a particularly stern stance on those involved in large-scale drug trafficking operations, often imposing the harshest sentences. Fines In addition to imprisonment, courts may impose hefty fines on individuals convicted of drug smuggling. These financial penalties are meant to act as both a punishment and a deterrent. Fines can be substantial and are typically proportional to the severity of the offense and the defendant’s financial means. Confiscation Orders The UK’s legal system has mechanisms to prevent criminals from profiting from their drug smuggling activities. Courts can issue confiscation orders requiring the defendant to surrender any assets or wealth acquired through drug smuggling. This means that criminals face prison time and fines and risk losing ill-gotten gains. Forfeiture of Assets In cases where assets such as vehicles, boats, properties, or other possessions were used to commission drug smuggling offenses, law enforcement agencies can seize these assets through forfeiture proceedings. This serves as a punishment for the offender and a means to disrupt criminal enterprises. Travel Restrictions Convictions related to drug smuggling can result in travel restrictions imposed on the individual. These restrictions may include bans on leaving the country to prevent the convicted person from continuing their criminal activities abroad. Such measures are implemented to ensure that those involved in drug smuggling cannot easily evade justice by fleeing the country.
Lets move to the selling of the illegally imported alcohol:
You can be stopped, fined or arrested by police if you’re under 18 and drinking alcohol in public. If you’re under 18, it’s against the law: - for someone to sell you alcohol - to buy or try to buy alcohol - for an adult to buy or try to buy alcohol for you - to drink alcohol in licensed premises (such as a pub or restaurant) However, if you’re 16 or 17 and accompanied by an adult, you can drink (but not buy) beer, wine or cider with a meal. If you’re 16 or under, you may be able to go to a pub (or premises primarily used to sell alcohol) if you’re accompanied by an adult. However, this isn’t always the case. It can also depend on the specific conditions for that premises. It’s illegal to give alcohol to children under 5.
For the sake of your argument, we’ll remove the law that says its illegal to sell alcohol to children, I guess? Regardless, it might be an American company that is selling it, but it is selling the alcohol in the UK. In UK currency, To UK residents. In the UK. We are getting into possibly exchanging UK currency for US currency, which is a whole new can of worms, but we can save that for later.
Now to your question:
now, do you still think the UK government has a right to fine 4chan or do you think maybe the UK government should elaborate on their prohibition regulations to ensure their citizens are properly “protected”?
Easy answer is yes. They should be fined for smuggling alcohol into the UK, which is what the current law calls for.
Now hypothetical for you.
Imagine for a moment that the UK has banned looking at alcohol if you are under 18. Doesn’t matter if you look at alcohol if you are over the age of 18, but you just can’t legally look at alcohol if you are under 18.
Now someone comes along named 4chan and builds a giant building in the UK that has a ton of alcohol inside of it. There isn’t anything outside of the building. Its only inside where the alcohol is. They don’t have protections in place that prevent anyone under 18 from going inside the building. Anyone can come in and look. You can be 5 years old, or 100 years old. As a matter of fact, tons of people from all over the UK come and visit this building daily, even children.
Now the UK government comes along and says, “Hey 4chan, you need to verify that anyone that goes into your building is at least 18 years old, because if someone under 18 looks at the alcohol in there, thats against the law.”
4chan ignores the UK and continues letting anyone inside, not verifying anyone’s age. Not only that, but they’re actually selling alcohol to children in there, and letting children make their own alcohol as well.
Should the UK be allowed to fine/arrest 4chan until they meet the demands?
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
gonna be honest, I didn’t read anything past this part.
So in your scenario here, 4chan starts off by smuggling alcohol into the UK.
I didn’t read any of it because you clearly didn’t read what I said.
here’s the part you conveniently forgot and it literally changes the entire argument.
some enterprising individuals have taken it upon themselves to buy, smuggle, and then sell those beverages inside the UK.
next time you want to argue your point don’t employ the use of bad faith tactics and try to argue your point without manufacturing flaws.
9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
LOL okay but you said:
now, do you still think the UK government has a right to fine 4chan or do you think maybe the UK government should elaborate on their prohibition regulations to ensure their citizens are properly “protected”?
I went ahead and edited it for you so it says enterprising individuals… which you end up asking about 4chan anyways
NiHaDuncan@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Learn to read.
9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Read what, exactly?
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 3 weeks ago
long, horizontal scroll boxes of text that isn’t code
proper blockquotes elsewhereYou clearly know how to blockquote: use it correctly.
9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Used it correctly per Mozilla’s blockquote documentation, as I was quoting another source.
then_three_more@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
now, some enterprising individuals have taken it upon themselves to buy, smuggle, and then sell those beverages inside the UK
Wouldn’t it be more akin to those individuals putting the alcohol into 4chan’s trucks that are taking other stuff to the UK? (and worse with 4chan’s knowledge)
In that case do you think it’s unreasonable that the uk government imposes penalties for 4chan refusing to remove the alcohol that they know is there from the trucks.
And then if 4chan then refuses to pay said penalties start to not allow them to bring any trucks into the uk at all?
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
the “trucks” in your example are the users computers/phones.
the highways are the Internet, which is owned and maintained by the UK government after their “gate”.
the alcohol is the content.
4chans trucks deliver to the UKs “gate” and the UK user does the rest from there on the UK highways.
if the UK doesn’t want the alcohol in their country, they need to stop their citizens from purchasing it and block it from entering their country at their “gate”.
this is what any reasonable country would do. they (UK) already do it for actual physical products like potassium bromate, azodicarbonamide, and certain artificial food dyes like Yellow 5 and Yellow 6.
Are they going to sue or fine the companies that manufacture those products? no. They’re going to ban the products that use them and then go after the individuals that smuggle them in.
then_three_more@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
the “trucks” in your example are the users computers/phones.
No it’s the packets being sent from the 4chan server.
Stopping every single packet (or in the real world truck) to check it isn’t feasible, do that and you get 20 mile queues up the m20 (and the digital version of that). Plus any government trying to so it like that would get accused of tax payers money due to the insane amount of resources that would be needed.
Placing the responsibility on the company makes sense, so does issuing penalties for non compliance. The company that has a fine issued against them can of course ignore it if they’re set up outside the country that issues the fine. But they should then expect the country issuing the fine to escalate. If they don’t pay and don’t comply they can expect to have any assets in the uk seized and eventually get blocked from operating entirely. And probably have any executives arrested of they enter the country. Ofcom can’t just jump to getting a court order though because they need to be fair and give 4chan a chance to comply if they want to.
The problem with the online safety act is that it exists at all, and that they expect people to use third party authentication services many of which are operating from countries with poor data protection regulations. That said, as iit does exist the logic of saying that companies are the ones responsible for what people access from their servers does make sense.
zecg@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Noooo the britbong threads
LoreSoong@startrek.website 3 weeks ago
Not you again… genuinely convinced this user is a bot. He made this same argument a month ago on a now deleted post almost verbatim. I disputed his claims with evidence and they continuously moved the goalpost through the entire argument. either braindead or just software please ignore.
Perspectivist@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Then explain why you disagree instead of coming at them with ad-hominem.
NiHaDuncan@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Not who you replied to, but: there is no legal, ethical, or moral, requirement for a business of one country to comply with the laws of another. If there was, all business would be beholden to the most overbearing government on any one subject. And just to specifically state it before it’s brought up, being tied into the international banking system doesn’t change that; if a state doesn’t want its citizenry doing business with a particular entity, it’s on them to stop it on their side or come to an agreement with the other’s government. Which does happen, especially with the conglomerate hegemony of components of the international banking system, but naturally that means that the only time any entity of a state is forced to comply with the laws of another is when their home-state demands it, which ultimately isn’t the laws of the other.
9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Their payment processor is operating in the UK though. 4chan isn’t refusing money from UK residents. It is accepting their payments.
9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I didn’t delete it lol