new | show | ask | jobs Github

adastra22 15 hours ago

Fine. That’s not what’s going on here.

▲

rbanffy 15 hours ago | parent [-]

It's entirely up to 4chan whether it decides to comply or not.

▲

tonyedgecombe 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Their executives might be in trouble if they ever visit the UK though.

	▲	adastra22 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If they want to run that sort of banana republic nonsense in violation of international laws and norms, they can choose to do so (and make an international incident).

▲

macinjosh 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No it’s not. Ofcom has no jurisdiction to make a US company do anything. The Internet is a global marketplace. If the UK wants to remove itself from this marketplace, like it did from the EU, it will need to do the blocking itself. But Ofcom knows what the government blocking access to information looks like and they don’t have the balls to do it.

▲

rbanffy 14 hours ago | parent [-]

It was done before. Brazil did that to WhatsApp and Twitter and both companies voluntarily complied with the court requests. Rumble remains blocked because it decided it wouldn't comply with the Brazilian court orders.

	▲	adastra22 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Those companies were operating in Brazil. They had income booked in Brazil that could be impounded. They had employees there and offices and had to comply with local laws. 4chan isn’t in the UK. 4chan doesn’t have UK employees or offices. 4chan doesn’t book income on the UK. 4chan didn’t have any thing to do with the UK at all. If this isn’t convincing, consider this: legally what is the difference from Afghanistan requesting anything not legally in compliance with Taliban’s laws be restricted? Would you support that? Legally that is what is going on here.