I was delineating a particular nuance – that the mere utilisation of Cloudflare does not, by itself, render 4Chan subject to the classification of «targeting UK users», save for the instance in which they issue a distinct monthly remittance to an entity denominated «Cloudflare UK» for the edge node services provided during the preceding period.

I.e., if a machine (the Cloudflare control plane) elects to route traffic through an edge node within the UK as an optimisation measure, such an act does not, in itself, constitute the possession of equipment within that jurisdiction — nor would it be readily ascertainable before a court of law.

Historically speaking, the Ofcom/UK approach is orthodox rather than novel. Ofcom’s sequence – information notices, process fines for non-response, then applications to court for service-restriction and access-restriction orders that bind UK intermediaries – is a modern, statute-bound version of a very old playbook. If a service has no UK presence and refuses to engage, the realistic endgame is to pressure UK-based points of access rather than to extract cash from an foreign entity.

What is new is the medium and the safeguards, not the underlying logic: regulate the domestic interface with out-of-jurisdiction speakers.

> But if you're shipping lemonade to the UK, you are subject to UK lemonade regulations.

I was with you up until here. Shipping to a physical address, where if you don't specify the country name, it won't arrive. Is very different than shipping to an Internet address, which has no "reasonable" connection to a physical location.

> Your choice are: follow UK regulations [give up the core gimmick of your entire site]; stop shipping lemonade to the UK [the shipping analogy really breaks here, how? and what about vpns? what if the other endpoint is in the UK but the address isn't?]; or continue as you were, never go to the UK, and know that the UK can always ban shipments from your stand.

I don't disagree that [country] can make laws that make society worse... But I don't think it's reasonable to defend them as if these actions aren't egregious. There's the armchair arguments that I enjoy as a thought experiment, but it's still important to point out how antisocial this behavior is.

> The US does the same thing all the time, and even worse [...]

There's an argument to be made they're using a domain registratar in the US, which is subject to those laws (obviously). But what about [other disappointing behavior] because it's worse. Is exactly the example you're arguing against. Precedence of bad stuff is still bad, ideally everyone would point out it's bad, and suggest alternatives to the bad thing, no?

Why is it the website operators job to figure out where people are from? It isn't even generally possible for them to do correctly. A better analogy would be that a british person hired someone who looked and sounded american to go to the us to buy some lemonade and have it shipped to the uk where having it breaks the law, and then blaming the lemonade stand.

> The UK is not threatening to seize anyone's site.

Yet? :)

So, my original point was that a business is not under the jurisdiction of the UK just because it offers a service to UK citizen - I probably should have mentioned I'm not in the UK.

Whether the website is illegal or not would depend on Russian law in your example. I'd also suspect that other laws might apply, like wire fraud. Some of those would likely be enforceable in other countries.

>Are you saying that if I had a website hosted in Russia that pretended to be your bank and stole all your money from phishing that is perfectly legal?

Website hosted in US publishing truth about Ukraine war - even calling it a war is already a felony in Russia - is it legal or illegal?

I'm personally against stealing money, and i'm for calling a war a war, yet how do we formally codify that into law - there are 200 countries and at any given moment, especially while online, you're probably violating some law of some country. Before internet globalization, the geography based jurisdiction was such an objective approach. Now it is more like "catch me if you can" which is obviously not a solid foundation to build on. Like that plane that had emergency landing in Minsk, and the Belorussian dissident flying on that plane was arrested by the Belorussian police. And many here on HN were critical of MBS when Khashoggi was killed in the Saudi embassy in Istanbul - what if our plane has to make an emergency landing in Riyadh ...

Is your claim that you have a multinational business, just because of a single webpage? Do you file sales tax reports in all 165 countries?

> > > UK users are accessing US servers to get service.

> That's called offering the service to UK users.

It is not – not under US law, not under common law (in the UK/Commonwealth).

Under US law and in common law systems generally, a website being merely accessible from country XYZ does not, by itself, constitute «offering a service» into XYZ. Courts look for purposeful targeting of, or meaningful interaction with, users in that place. Mere accessibility is not enough. See [0] for a precedent.

1. The US approach in a nutshell.

a) Personal-jurisdiction basics: a court needs «minimum contacts» that the website operator created with the forum. The US Supreme Court has previously stressed that the plaintiff’s location or where effects are felt is not enough if the defendant did not create forum contacts.

b) The «Zippo sliding scale» test distinguishes passive sites from interactive, commercial ones. Passive presence online generally does not create jurisdiction. See [1] for a landmark opinion.

c) The Fourth Circuit’s ALS Scan test says a state may exercise jurisdiction when the defendant directs electronic activity into the state, with a manifest intent to do business or interact there, and that activity gives rise to the claim. Simply putting content on the web is not enough. Again, see [0] for an established precedent.

2. The common law/European «targeting» idea

a) UK and EU courts apply a similar targeting notion in various contexts. The CJEU in Pammer/Alpenhof held that a site must be directed to the consumer’s member state; mere accessibility is insufficient. UK cases on online IP use also examine whether activity is targeted at UK users. See [2] for an established precedent on the other side of the pond.

b) Data-protection law is also explicit: the GDPR applies to non-EU operators when they offer goods or services to people in the EU or monitor them. Recital 23 and the EDPB’s guidelines list indicators such as using a local language or currency, shipping to the territory, local contact details, and targeted ads. Accessibility alone does not trigger the rule.

To recap, if a US-hosted site simply serves content that UK users can reach, that alone does not mean the operator is «offering a service» to the UK or its citizens under US law or general common-law principles. Liability or regulatory reach typically turns on targeting and purposeful availment, not mere availability. Circle back to [0] for details again.

[0] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/293...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zippo_Manufacturing_Co._v._Zip....

[2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...