There's a difference between prosecuting a crime, and restricting people to prevent it from even happening. Both have a place but only the former retains your liberty.

▲ zapnuk 4 days ago | parent [-]

Yes, thats the problem. Prosecuting crimes on the internet is near impossible due to the restrictions and often anonymity. Thats why we rely on platform providers to help us, the public.

Facebook, Youtube and others put in effort to take down illegal content.

4chan only does the bare minimum such that they don't gain too much relevancy in the public eye.

UK or other countries may decide that 4chan doesn't to enough and ban it because of the help of 4chan in faciliating the spreading of illegal content.

So again, where is the difference between 4chan which hosts/spread illegal content and other sites where we're fine with banning them?

	▲	throwaway2037 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		`> Prosecuting crimes on the internet is near impossible due to the restrictions and often anonymity.` The US does it quite well. The FBI has a near endless number of court cases where they subpoena ISPs and content hosting platforms to de-anon and gather evidence to build cases. My biggest concern about the movement of crime from the streets to "cyberspace" is that almost all Internet crime is considered Federal (across state lines), thus carries much harsher penalties that state-only crimes.