Comment on 4chan fined $26K for refusing to assess risks under UK Online Safety Act

• NiHaDuncan@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.

  source

  • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Their payment processor is operating in the UK though. 4chan isn’t refusing money from UK residents. It is accepting their payments.

    source

    • NiHaDuncan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      4Chan doesn’t have their own personal payment processor that they’re responsible for. They’re tied into processors like stripe and accept all payments that make it to them on the US side. So long as it is legal, which is typically the only way that a payment actually goes through as processors refuse the obviously illegal cases like encompassing embargoes. If the UK doesn’t want payments going to 4chan through a processor that operates in their country, it’s on them to stop the payment processor on their end.

      The UK knows this, the fines are just one step towards them petitioning processors.

      source