UK is trying to Censor 4Chan

[thecoalman]

The UK is trying to impose fines on 4chan based on their Online Safety Act, a site wholly owned and operated in the US. They didn't even file this though proper US legal channels as required by US law. Instead they sent them an email. Their lawyer has told the UK government to pound sand. Here is snippet of initial response.

4chan is a United States company, incorporated in Delaware, with no establishment, assets, or operations in the United Kingdom. Any attempt to impose or enforce a penalty against 4chan will be resisted in U.S. federal court.

American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an e-mail. Under settled principles of U.S. law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes.

It's more that just the first amendment, you can't be compelled to provide documentation without a court order (fourth amendment) and .due process(fifth amendment). That snippet was from a few days ago and 4chan is now suing in US federal court to get a US court to declare the UK's actions illegal, they will win.

[bbc.com...]

Ofcom told the BBC: "We are aware of this lawsuit. Under the Online Safety Act, any service that has links with the UK now has duties to protect UK users, no matter where in the world it is based."

That's some "chutzpah" to think you can regulate a US company. I realize they have leverage with companies like Google because of assets, subsidiaries and other physical presence but that is not the case here. They are about to get taken down a peg or two.

[graeme_p]

This is the entire point of the Online Safety Act.

It does mean people associated with 4Chan will have to be careful about travelling to the UK. The lawyer is right US courts will not enforce the fines, but everyone involved will have to watch what they do.

The US regulates foreign companies quite a lot, so its set a precedent. There are also lots of other similar things - e.g. EU VAT rules apply to foreign companies that sell to people in the EU, GDPR (and the UK equivalent). A lot of American websites block British and EU visitors because of GDPR (mostly mid sized ones, like regional news sites, not big businesses with a physical presence) and the same is happenning with the Online Safety Act.

I am absolutely opposed to the OSA, but its where things are going, and the US and other governments are going to want to do similar things. The future of the internet is basically Chinese style censorship, enforced with on device scanning as well as blocks.

This is why governments are so keen on enforcing the dominance of big tech. The EU's new age verification app (under development AFAIK) is designed to run only on Google approved Android phones to lock out pure FOSS versions. The OSA shuts down independent forums and pushes people to social media. Mississipi has passed an age verification law that sounds even worse than the OSA.

[thecoalman]

The US regulating BP and Airbus or the UK/EU regulating Apple and Google is not the issue here. The UK/EU regulating a UK/EU business so they cannot do business with a US company also not an issue.

This is a whole other matter because it's a business wholly owned and operated in the US the UK is attempting to impose censorship laws on. If the UK doesn't want UK citizens to view this site it's their responsibility to block it.

The age verification laws in Mississippi and Texas are not comparable because they are not censoring content, it's a misguided attempt to block access to adult content for specific age group. One could argue it is a form of censorship because it makes it more difficult for adults to access it and I would agree but at the end of the day the content is not being censored (Edit:Unless you under the age of 18).

[graeme_p]

The age verification laws in Mississippi and Texas are not comparable because they are not censoring content, it's a misguided attempt to block access to adult content for specific age group.

That is exactly the same as the Online Safety Act. It requires age verification for certain content when accessed from the UK.

[thecoalman]

That's not what the UK is saying. Bold is mine.

[gov.uk...]
The Online Safety Act 2023 (the Act) is a new set of laws that protects children and adults online. It puts a range of new duties on social media companies and search services, making them more responsible for their users’ safety on their platforms. The Act will give providers new duties to implement systems and processes to reduce risks their services are used for illegal activity, and to take down illegal content when it does appear.

Correct me if I wrong but "illegal activity" would include speech censored in the UK., yes? For US company to comply with this law they would need to apply UK censorship. Speech that would be legal in the US.

[graeme_p]

Correct me if I wrong but "illegal activity" would include speech censored in the UK., yes?

I think not. That is politically spun and about as credible as their claim that the Act is there to protect kids from #*$!. This is the relevant section of the act: [legislation.gov.uk...]

It also only applies to their interaction with Uk visitors. I suspect the main impact will be that they just geoblock the UK - just as many American sites already geoblock the UK and EU.

[thecoalman]

Policing UK visitors to 4chans site is not their responsibility since the UK has no legal authority over them. If the UK wants to block that content it's their responsibility.

[lucy24]

4chan is now suing in US federal court to get a US court to declare the UK's actions illegal

Oh, the irony.

[tangor]

Where's the jurisdiction? Gotta know that first!

[graeme_p]

Policing UK visitors to 4chans site is not their responsibility since the UK has no legal authority over them.

There is a precedent for that in sites in the US that block UK and EU visitors to avoid GDPR compliance costs. That is an implicit acceptance of legal authority - otherwise they would just tell them to get lost.

Wikipedia is going to court in the UK to avoid this.

Lots of businesses around the world are registered for EU VATMOSS (where they charge EU VAT on sales of digital goods to customers in the EU).

[thecoalman]

There is a precedent for that in sites in the US that block UK and EU visitors to avoid GDPR compliance costs.

Unless they have a business presence in the EU/UK or association with EU/UK business that's voluntary. In the case of business associations that's a business decision, not a legal one.

Just because other sites are volunteering to do this doesn't mean 4chan or any other site in their situation would be required to do it. The EU/UK can fine them all they want, there is simply no way to enforce it.. They know this because they emailed them instead of going through proper legal channels for actions like this.

I do not comply with the GDPR or any UK/EU law, fine me and come arrest me when I don't pay it. LOL

[tangor]

If you look past the politics, you see this for what it is:

A Money Grab

[graeme_p]

@thecoalman - you are doing the right thing, but businesses will not, they will do the safe/easy thing. The can enforce it it anyone connected with a website enters their jurisdiction or one that cooperates with them or has money on one. Most people will not take the risk.

They are using the proper legal channels for their jurisdiction.

They are using the proper channels for their jurisdiction. Initial requests for info go by email.

@tangor, it is partly a money grab, but it is also mostly a way of extending surveillance. One politician who supports it says adults should be "transparent" (i.e. be fine with everyone knowing) about their #*$! watching habits. They are trying to get rid of privacy.

[thecoalman]

Just to be clear I have this option, the easy thing to do is not comply if you have that option.

As some of you know I'm moderator on phpbb.com. A user there who has a site in the UK with UK host brought up the topic about phpBB software complying with this. The first issue I see is liability for phpBB because if you are saying it's compliant and you didn't cross your T's and dot your I's you could be liable. The second issue is it would appear you need some pretty heavy duty technology, I'm even having difficulty finding a third party solution that isn't listed as ask for quote. Lastly where does this end? You would need an army of lawyers to keep up with laws passed around the globe.

They are using the proper channels for their jurisdiction. Initial requests for info go by email.

It's not their jurisdiction which is the point of this topic. If you are foreign government and want to take legal action against someone in the US there is process for that. It wouldn't have made a difference because no US court is going enforce UK laws on US citizen/business contradictory to the US Constituion.

[thecoalman]

Can of worms officially opened. FTC now involved and I would expect it to escalate:

[ftc.gov...]

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson sent letters today to more than a dozen prominent technology companies reminding them of their obligations to protect the privacy and data security of American consumers despite pressure from foreign governments to weaken such protections. He also warned them that censoring Americans at the behest of foreign powers might violate the law.

The letters were sent to companies that provide cloud computing, data security, social media, messaging apps and other services and include: Akamai, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Cloudflare, Discord, GoDaddy, Meta, Microsoft, Reddit, Signal, Snap, Slack and X.

The letters noted that companies might feel pressured to censor and weaken data security protections for Americans in response to the laws, demands, or expected demands of foreign powers. These laws include the European Union’s Digital Services Act and the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act, which incentivize tech companies to censor worldwide speech, and the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act, which can require companies to weaken their encryption measures to enable UK law enforcement to access data stored by users.

“I am concerned that these actions by foreign powers to impose censorship and weaken end-to-end encryption will erode Americans’ freedoms and subject them to myriad harms, such as surveillance by foreign governments and an increased risk of identity theft and fraud,” Chairman Ferguson wrote.
......................

[graeme_p]

It's not their jurisdiction which is the point of this topic. If you are foreign government and want to take legal action against someone in the US there is process for that.

No, there are multiple circumstances in which courts of one country will allow legal action against someone in another country. Who has jurisdiction is often complex.

Governments have multiple ways of getting at individuals and organisations when they cannot enforce through courts. For example, banks around the world comply with US law in order to avoid getting cut off from American payment sanction. Multiple governments have done a whole lot of different things ranging from seizing assets to physically dragging people off a plane that pasees through their country - even ordering planes in their airspace to do so.

The first issue I see is liability for phpBB because if you are saying it's compliant and you didn't cross your T's and dot your I's you could be liable.

The developers would not be, and most would be out of jurisdiction. The operator would be.

The second issue is it would appear you need some pretty heavy duty technology, I'm even having difficulty finding a third party solution that isn't listed as ask for quote.

What is the requirement? Age verification? Its not always required. It depends, and steps taken are required to be proportionate.

The second issue is it would appear you need some pretty heavy duty technology, I'm even having difficulty finding a third party solution that isn't listed as ask for quote. Lastly where does this end? You would need an army of lawyers to keep up with laws passed around the globe.

That is a feature, not a bug. The governments consult the industry about laws like this. The "industry" is big tech, who are very happy to see costs that will be a barrier to entry (what Warren Buffet calls a "moat") for smaller competitors. Ofcom actually said the costs are negligible because they will usually be just a few thousand pounds for a small site - its not negligible for a volunteer running a community site. The "solution" is to move to social media.

I had ideas myself for a not for profit forum to give people an alternative venue for a topic dominated by FB groups - I am unlikely to ever do it now. FB gets to keep the traffic.

an of worms officially opened. FTC now involved and I would expect it to escalat

I think the UK's investigatory powers act and EU's planned equivalent are likely to be the biggest problems there.

[graeme_p]

Regarding the operator or a UK forum using phpbb - they should have a look at the Ofcom guidance. There is a lot about proportionality, and it depends on the type of content etc.

[thecoalman]

This has the potential to balloon into a bigger problem than that. The US is deeply divided on many issues but this isn't one of them. If the FTC is already engaged issuing warnings to US companies about legal ramifications there is going to be more in the pipeline.

[thecoalman]

There is report about an app aimed at women to talk about men that was hacked exposing 18K photos used for age verification including ID cards. UK law requires them to be deleted however....

How does one prove you followed law if you have no proof?

More importantly when a site/app is outside of UK/EU jurisdiction deletion of the photo is not required. Normalizing uploading ID/photos to websites/apps is massive privacy risk and opens the door for fraud.

[tangor]

Ofcom guidance. There is a lot about proportionality, and it depends on the type of content etc.

Well and good for UK based sites, not so good for non-UK sites.

Also suggests what KIND of content is okay (anything WE don't like!) and that's censorship, plain and simple. As noted above, the FTC is unlikely to play along. Sadly, there will be a head-butting in the future.

[thecoalman]

If you look past the politics, you see this for what it is:

A Money Grab

It is but not in the sense you are thinking. This Ofcom is funded through fees paid by those they are regulating, that's surely not open for corruption. On top of that it's a pseudo government agency, similar to a commission or the Fed here in the US so they basically answer to themselves.

Sadly, there will be a head-butting in the future.

I'm still amazed at the audacity of them to think they can regulate a business wholly owned and operated in the US. The 4chan lawsuit is not seeking damages, it seeks a declaration they have no legal authority. They will win and if the UK doesn't back off there will be more than head butting going on.

[tangor]

This Ofcom is funded through fees paid by those they are regulating

This is known. What is also known is that their operating capital is solely based on what they can generate. Any bureaucracy worth its salt will do all it can to GROW itself.

It's a money grab. There ain't no money in the EU floating around that hasn't already been taxed, vat'd, or regulated out the wazoo. Looking for new territory. The US, however, is a buzz saw waiting for someone to flip the switch. 4chan just might be the switch.

Ofcom is doing this the wrong way. If they want to protect the UK public, they should do it from THEIR end by cutting off UK access to the US (a known source of "free speech".) The fact they don't is a real indication of what is desired: TAXING THE US so Ofcom can meet their bloated payroll, which they have to generate for themselves.

This will not end pretty.

Keywords: "Taxation", "Representation", "Tea", "Boston"

[thecoalman]

Keywords: "Taxation", "Representation", "Tea", "Boston"

I'm no fan of lawyers but I love reading filings when they are pushing buttons.

101. Kiwi Farms, through its counsel, replied to the Kiwi Farms Advisory Letter on
March 31, 2025. In that response, Kiwi Farms stated, among other things, that “where Americans
are concerned, the Online Safety Act purports to legislate the Constitution out of existence.
Parliament does not have that authority. That issue was settled, decisively, 243 years ago in a war
that the UK’s armies lost and are not in any position to relitigate.”

Full filing: [courthousenews.com...]

[tangor]

Heh! I, too, follow court filings and this was a zinger!

Ofcom, as originally conceived, had a marginal value DURING THAT TIME OF BROADCAST EXPANSION in the UK. These days they can barely justify existence in a different world where "broadcast" is such a minimal player.

The WEB changed everything.

[thecoalman]

These days they can barely justify existence in a different world where "broadcast" is such a minimal player.

This is the famous antenna police? It's making more sense now, gotta find someone else to leech off of.

[thecoalman]

That is what they want to achieve.....

That's really not the main point I was making. If you are normalizing this it's wide open for fraud. A UK citizen that is being required to do this all the time inevitably is going to end up at some website outside of the UK. If 4chan wanted too they could require ID from UK citizen and completely ignore the rest of it.

This is what Ofcom want.

I don't know if that is necessarily the case and it's not well thought out if it is. When the website is blocking it's very easy for the user or the UK government to lay the blame at the feet of the website. When the government starts blocking it that's on them.

[graeme_p]

When the website is blocking it's very easy for the user or the UK government to lay the blame at the feet of the website. When the government starts blocking it that's on them

That is why they need an excuse. If they introduced a law that just gave Ofcom powers to censor websites and block those that did not comply there would be huge pushback.

Look at the sites they have targetted. There are lots of foreign UGC sites that are breaking this law. Wikipedia probably and is much bigger. There are many, many others. They have picked on two that people will not want to stand up for.

This has been pushed as a way to stop kids seeing #*$!. Almost all the government comments and media discussions are about that. aspect of the bill Most of the public are unaware of other impacts and requirements. People who object to the bill are portrayed as being paedos or trying to help paedos. its a classic "think of the children" tactic.

If they really wanted to stop kids seeing #*$! they would promote site blocking services for kids which are already available. You can buy kid safe SIMs for kids phones, for example. Some ISPs offer blocking for fixed line services. Those are far more effective, and yet the government has chosen to go for age verification. The only plausible explanation IMO is that they want excuses for greater surveillance and control of what people do online.

[thecoalman]

They have picked on two that people will not want to stand up for.

If you are going to have free speech it's an all or nothing deal. Minimal exceptions apply like not being able yell fire in a theater or direct threats of violence but those are criminal acts. I don't use either of those sites because I usually lose a few IQ points reading nonsense like that but I 100% support their right to spew that bile. If you want an idea of how far free speech protections extend here in the US look up the Westboro Baptist Church. You will probably be shocked, fair warning, it's vile. I support their rights as well. Regardless of my opinions or anyone else's it's not up for debate here in the US unless it was Constitutional amendment.

[graeme_p]

---

System: The following message was spliced on to this thread from: https://www.webmasterworld.com/foo/5124931.htm [webmasterworld.com] by not2easy - 8:39 pm on Aug 31, 2025 (atl -4)

---

Normalizing uploading ID/photos to websites/apps is massive privacy risk and opens the door for fraud.

That is what they want to achieve. I already quoted the politician who said she wants "transparency" - i.e. an end to privacy. This is already well under way - who would have thought 20 years ago that people would have internet connected microphones under someone else's control in their houses?

Ofcom is doing this the wrong way. If they want to protect the UK public, they should do it from THEIR end by cutting off UK access to the US

They do not have the legal authority to do this. Foreign sites can only be blocked voluntarily by ISPs (which they do for things like CSA) or with a court order to the ISP.

The 4chan lawsuit is not seeking damages, it seeks a declaration they have no legal authority.

This is what Ofcom want. If they can show that they cannot enforce the law on foreign sites, they will then say that they need powers to block those sites. Just to "protect the children", of course.

[not2easy]

It took all day but the duplicate that had been removed earlier is finally back (if out of sequence).

Sorry for the delay.