This is interesting.
“American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an e-mail.”
Hopefully more sites and services outside the UK will refuse to comply with the appalling Online Safety Act.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
Economics |
4chan tells the UK state to go rotatePerry de Havilland (Prague) · Internet · North American affairs · Opinions on liberty · Privacy & Panopticon · UK affairs August 18th, 2025 |
 26 comments to 4chan tells the UK state to go rotateLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
But why would Ofcom pick a fight that it was certain to lose? It might just be bureaucratic hubris. It’s also possible that it is intended to create a pretext for further censorship of the internet in the UK. To do this, Ofcom tries to impose its rules on an organisation that it knows to be entirely outside its jurisdiction. It deliberately picks an organisation that is known for hosting provocative content. When American lawyers – and potentially, American courts – tell it to get stuffed, Ofcom complains to the government that it is unable to do anything about this terrible offensive material entering the UK. The government then announces, with much sighing and expressions of regret, that sadly it must impose new restrictions on internet access in the UK to “protect” the public from things that other governments refuse to ban. At the same time, it feeds the media with examples of the most extreme content from 4chan to generate shock-horror “BAN THIS FILTH” headlines. A few months later, you can still access 4chan but somehow all reports of violent crime by illegal immigrants have mysteriously disappeared.
If a USA public corporation running a website determines that it would be more profitable for its shareholders to acquiesce to the UK’s demands than to lose the UK as a market, should it hold to its leaders free-speech principles, or would that simply be an ESG-type improper corporate use?
@bobby b
I think that is an interesting and fair argument, however, it does not apply here. Were 4chan to genuflect here it would loose its American market. It is, after all, the place people go to say outrageous things. It’s byline could well be “The place to say things Ofcom disapproves of”.
I think though it depends on the purpose of the corporation. Not all corporations are formed solely for profit. Oxfam, MIT, Wikipedia or Chicago Humane society are probably all incorporated but are not incorporated primarily for the purpose of making a profit. 4chan is a private company, not traded on the market and so is not subject to the market rules, and it’s whole shtick is about free speech. I’m sure the owners rejoiced when they saw this letter — it’ll really boost their readership (I’m thinking about spending some time there.)
Were it Google or Apple your question would be much more relevant.
Though one thing about the letter — I’m not sure why the government (outside the courts) should get involved. Let Ofcom sue. How exactly are they going to enforce their judgement?
What arrogance on the part of little Britain, and some petty little quango, to think they can enforce their will on the whole world. Sounds kind of like the good old days of empire to me. Dare I say it is kind of colonial?
How many battalions does Ofcom have?
Ah, but see, now you’re just screwing with the hypo. (Sorry if that’s just a law school term.)
The hypothetical includes ” . . . determines that it would be more profitable for its shareholders to acquiesce to the UK’s demands than to lose the UK as a market . . . ” So, in the hypo, the loss of some or all of the US market is already baked into the calculation.
As I was sitting here agreeing with myself that 4-chan was absolutely doing the right thing, it occurred to me that the ESG corp governance people probably felt just as righteous insisting that corporations ought to favor minorities.
So am I just as bad as they are?
Part 2:
All they need do is convince one US federal court judge that the UK judgment that they obtain is enforceable in the USA. I have NO confidence that ALL US fed court judges even care what the law actually says anymore. So, yeah, I see some financial risk here. Probably would be overturned eventually, but the process is the . . . .
@bobby b
Ah, but see, now you’re just screwing with the hypo. (Sorry if that’s just a law school term.)
Got it, which is why I suggested Google or Apple as better targets.
However, my opinion, if I am CEO of a big corporation who has as its purpose to make money for the shareholders and the evidence is clear that genuflecting is more profitable then I would either quit or genuflect. It isn’t my money and the people in charge — the shareholders — have given me a standing order to maximize profits. Who am I to spend their money in a way they didn’t intend. Of course sometimes the board of directors do instruct the CEO, on behalf of the shareholders, to factor in something besides profits, such as ESG. And I suppose, were I the CEO I’d do that too, though I would probably be drunk most of the time to mask my self loathing for doing so.
Pure for profits should be doing everything to maximize profits within the bounds of the law. That is what they are there for.
BTW, an interesting side note from my field is the question of building software with support for disabilities. There are a whole set of web standards around building web sites that work well with screen readers, magnifiers, contrast for people with poor vision and so forth. In the US they are obliged to do this (I think smaller companies can get away with it) due to the ADA, and I imagine in other countries there is a similar rule. The large majority of web sites do not comply with these laws because I’d estimate that it can add 20% to the development cost to do so — though obviously that number varies a lot. In fact I think if you wanted to make some good dirty money in your retirement years you could do pretty well by suing web site publishers for not doing so. Give me a call and I’ll be your expert witness…. we can split the loot down the middle.
However, I heard Tim Cook, head of Apple, talking about this and he was explaining that all the work involved in this does not increase his market share sufficiently to pay for the work — but they do it anyway. Irrespective of the law that MAKES him do it, I think this is not dissimilar to the subject at hand, except that obviously helping people with disabilities is a good thing and stealing peoples privacy is a bad thing. However, the question of obligation beyond profit comes from the same place.
@Fraser Orr
Arguably it’s not just individuals that can signal their virtue. Businesses can too, although they sometimes make a mess of it (Budweiser Lite, Jaguar for instance).
Since ‘virtue is its own reward’, or so it seems, it can sit alongside a businesses duties to its shareholders. However it seems that at least some lessons have been learned and people responsible for such signalling are losing their jobs.
There are a whole set of web standards around building web sites that work well with screen readers, magnifiers, contrast for people with poor vision and so forth
You don’t build websites with support for that stuff. You simple *DON’T* go out of your way to *BREAK* your website. Making websites function properly would actually be *LESS* work, not more.
Yes indeed Perry – no business (or person) should aid this process of creeping totalitarianism.
DJ,
From a Brit’s perspective the idea that Bud Lite destroyed it’s image is farcical. I mean if I was trans I wouldn’t want to associate myself with that piss.
Jaguar. Different kettle of fish. Jaguar is like James Bond. The ideas for re-booting Bond as black/female/gay whatever stray so far away from Bond as to be Bond In Name Only*. If you want a movie franchise about a black lesbian superspy… Yeah, why not? Might work with a good cast, crew and plots. But it’s not Bond. Jaguar’s “reveal” of Barbie’s Cybertruck was risible and it’s just not Jaguar. You diss your core audience and appeal to… who? The puff who does the Kardashian’s hair?
*Which ought to be the name of the next “woke” Bond movie.
What NickM said.
I can’t see the rationale for this. The marketing goal is obviously to appeal to a new audience/demographic but the thinking is clearly flawed.
Presumably they are thinking it’s “easier” to use the existing brand recognition that to create something from scratch but these are classic examples where the pivot is so extreme that you aren’t stretching the brand: you’re just cratering your existing brand and loyal following in the (vain) hope that you might bring on new customers.
On the flip side, creating a completely new brand to one side is a) hard and b) could have an even worse downstream impact when it’s discovered that the new “trans-friendly-Jaguar” is just a silo-ed brand for the wierdos – that’s basically an admission that you can’t get them to mix.
T P-G.
That is the point. If you pivot too far you lose your base and confuse everyone else. If your rebrand is that extreme then it is time to start a wholly new brand. Which is difficult and takes time. I recall in the ’80/90s when Korean and Taiwanese stuff was considered a cheap rip-off of Japanese stuff. I’ve got a Samsung phone and an ASUS laptop. Neither are things anyone would these days consider junk.
Having said that I have no idea (and this is the problem – because no bugger does) what the “Queermobile” would look like. I have a good mate who is gay and car-wise he’s interested in things like mpg, reliability and residual price after three years – the same as everyone else. If anyone told me they were never going to buy a Toyota because they were “gender-fluid” I would think them “queer” in ways other than they imagined that word to mean. Older ways.
Anyway, I don’t really know that much about cars. I do know about computers so I’m going to build a non-binary one!
4 Chan really, really enjoys messing with people. So it is surprising to read that they have engaged Ron Coleman ( look him up) rather than just going after Ofcom.
I learn today that once upon a time there was a contest to have Taylor Swift perform at your High School. 4 chan stacked the voting, and the winner was – wait for it- The Horace Mann School For The Deaf.
If 4chan wants to have real fun there is so much statute and case law in the US at the state and Federal level that once they strip Ofcom senior management and board members of FSIA immunity, basically a form of Qualified Immunity, and very doable, then individuals in senior management position in Ofcom can be sued in US courts as individuals.
Then they can be subpoenaed to appear in person at a US court. The court will be of 4chans choosing.
If the Ofcom senior people refuse to appear then a whole bunch of felony charges can be filed. If 4chan lawyers want to continue the fun.
And if the Ofcom management appear in court in the US the 4chan lawyers can get a court order keeping them in the US. As a flight risk.
And so on.
The options are endless. It’s just how much money you are willing to spend. And if I were the 4chal lawyers I organize the initial stages of litigation in such a way that the DoJ or states AG offices get sucked in. Who will not have money problems.
With a bit of luck we’ll need a whole semi trailer load of popcorn
@tfourier
Sounds bloody marvellous!
@jgh
You don’t build websites with support for that stuff. You simple *DON’T* go out of your way to *BREAK* your website.
That’s not true at all. Accessibility adds a considerable burden on the design of a site. Just to give one simple example, probably close to 99% of images on the web (img tag) do not have an associated alt text, which is required — how else can a screen reader describe an image? And of course, in a corporate setting, the text included there usually has to go through an expensive approval process.
And that is one of many, many such requirements.
Maybe this is a pretext, after Great British Energy we will get the Great British Firewall
Gotta agree with Fraser Orr on this one. An important class of web sites are veritable applications, which have to update fields based on database queries, responses from web services, etc. If you want to build one of those for your business, you’re going to need to rely on third-party frameworks if you want any chance of being compatible with the vast array of device standards your users will implement. Even if your interface frameworks support all the accessibility devices, you have to make sure that you use that correctly, and test every added field, widget, etc. to make sure you don’t break it.
This is very much an international agenda of censorship, persecution and control – but the state in the United Kingdom seems to be in the van of this agenda.
This is something to be ashamed, deeply ashamed, about.
Runcie,
You don’t quite see the Big Picture. We will have a National Internet Service. North Korea does so why not?
Surely a British government body (or emanation of the State) seeking to exercise sovereignty over anyone in the US is violating the peace from the Treaty of Paris, 1783?
It’d be terrible if Pete Hegseth decided to, well, you know, remind the UK government (or part of it) that if the Treaty has no force, the peace is at an end.
Once government exercises its jurisdiction and power over what can be sent on that internet, why bother with ownership?
Ownership implies that gov would have to do the work to keep it going. Easier to let the companies maintain “ownership” and responsibility without control.
Wasn’t that really the original version of fascism?
Whatever the views are about a specific site, at this stage in the troubled history of the UK, this is the only sort of response that is merited. The UK authorities need to be told, coldly, politely and consistency, to pound sand.
I am a patriotic Brit, but my loyalties are not unconditional. To be a patriot, one needs something to be patriotic about.
Mr Ed – good point Sir.
The British government must stop interfering with the liberties of people (and business enterprises) in other nations – Tin Pot Tyranny in Britain itself is NOT an act of war on other nations, but trying to impose tyranny on people who are not even in the United Kingdom would indeed be an aggression.
bobby b – yes the idea of nominal private ownership, but under state direction, is an old one – Louis XIV and Colbert were pushing such an idea long before the Germanic states – but German thinkers did make a philosophy of it, Fichte is an example of such a “proto Nazi” philosopher (a century before the Nazis).
General Lundendorff in the First World War pushed “German Socialism” – nominal private ownership, but under state direction – the roots go back well before (a bizarre thing is that the crushing of monetary freedom in Germany – gold money – came just BEFORE the First World War, almost as if the German Central Bank knew what was coming).
“Nation, State and Economy” and “Omnipotent Government” (the latter book about National Socialist Germany), both by Ludwig Von Mises, are good accounts of how German business owners were turned into “shop managers” – puppets of the state.
Far from serving a class (the Marxist theory) the German state was very much an independent entity.
But then states tend to be so – for example when Karl Marx was asked what class the government of Napoleon III (France was the leading nation of mainland Europe at the time – indeed France was the second largest economy in the world when Dr Marx was asked the question) he could not answer the question – he became abusive “the lumpen proletariat” (the criminals and beggars) – to divert attention from the fact that his theory did not fit reality.
States often do not serve a particlar class defined by ownership of the means of production.
Johnathan Peace – yes indeed Sir, and very well put.
A state that has decided to be in the vanguard of the international movement of censorship and persecution has no charm for me either.
Ah….the good old days…..Laurence Godfrey, Demon Internet, Cornell University, Usenet…..
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/06/cyber/cyberlaw/05law.html