350
submitted 1 day ago by 0x0@lemmy.zip to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] paraphrand@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

Coming back to this thread later, I’m surprised that it’s mostly being negative regarding 4chan.

I’m use to people defending it when it comes up. Even defending it to my face in synchronous spaces online. The dissonance always weirded me out.

It’s good to see.

[-] LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world 14 points 11 hours ago
[-] bss03@infosec.pub 8 points 7 hours ago

The hacker known as 4 Chan is BACK, baby!

[-] Schwim@lemmy.zip 8 points 8 hours ago

Not dead. Just irrelevant.

[-] ebolapie@lemmy.world 8 points 9 hours ago

4chan is a very stubborn website

[-] Pamasich@kbin.earth 32 points 13 hours ago

I'm a bit confused by comments on this topic. Do sovereign countries not have the right anymore to decide their own laws and issue punishment when they're not followed?

Like, they obviously can't enforce these fines. This article says as much. The fines can't be enforced, but if 4chan ignores them, that opens the door for other measures like delisting the site from search engines or blocking access to it from the UK (these two examples are taken from the article). Which are fair measures imo.

Like, to the people saying UK can't do laws which apply to services which are merely accessible in the UK and have no physical presence there, do you also apply this logic to the GDPR, which works the same way? The US has these laws too, like COPPA iirc. It's not really something the UK came up with, it's a bit of a standard with laws like this as far as I know.

[-] Hubi@feddit.org 15 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

I’m a bit confused by comments on this topic. Do sovereign countries not have the right anymore to decide their own laws and issue punishment when they’re not followed?

Some laws are bullshit and I commend everyone who decides to ignore them.

but if 4chan ignores them, that opens the door for other measures like delisting the site from search engines or blocking access to it from the UK (these two examples are taken from the article)

This has already happened to a number of sites and services, with some voluntarily blocking access from the UK. 4chan's approach is just a bit different in the way that they are waiting to get blocked instead of doing the blocking themselves. It sucks for citizens from the UK, but they are the ones that put the people in power who created those laws.

Like, to the people saying UK can’t do laws which apply to services which are merely accessible in the UK and have no physical presence there, do you also apply this logic to the GDPR, which works the same way?

This has also been the case already. There are a number of American websites that will just straight up deny you access if you visit them from a EU country. Some even cite GDPR as the reason for being blocked. I don't think it's the best solution, but I accept it because I wouldn't want to visit a site that cannot comply with it anyways.

[-] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 15 points 15 hours ago

Trump admin: "We literally want the same exact thing."

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 31 points 17 hours ago

I'm pulled back and forth with this one. On the one hand, 4chan is a shithole that should be taken care of. On the other side, UK laws that try to govern the internet are so overly deranged shit.

[-] MBech@feddit.dk 1 points 7 hours ago

Are EU privacy laws trying to govern the internet also deranged?

I don't agree with the laws the UK have on this matter, but trying to govern the internet is absolutely nothing new, and most of the time the internet fucking loves it, and praises the EU for trying to do so.

[-] sleen@lemmy.zip 10 points 13 hours ago

"Taken care of", so how does this kind of perspective differ from the protection law?

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

Properly dealing with hate crimes is different from controlling the internet more or less in general.

Let the internet be free, but also keep it free from hate.

[-] Schwim@lemmy.zip 7 points 8 hours ago

"Let it be free, but control it to keep this part out."

That's literally what you're experiencing. You get to witness the flaw in the part where you don't get to pick the entity that decides which content doesn't belong.

[-] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Keep it free from hate without controlling it? Who gets the ultimate say, then? The internet or the government? If your answer is "the government" how in the world does that work without controlling the internet? What government has successfully done this before?

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

I said I am torn here. Basically both sides are shit. I know this does not help.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

I really hope he says no, just because 4chan deserves the leopards.

[-] sleen@lemmy.zip 10 points 13 hours ago

Why, because they are opposing the safety act just like we are. It just seems a bit naive.

[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago

Lots of people here happy to cut off their nose to spite their face. 4chan losing this battle means everyone loses it

[-] chunes@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago

Why would an American website pay fines because of the laws of a random country?

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 15 points 19 hours ago

If you offer a service in a country you are subject to their laws.

[-] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

My website is my website. You visit my website, my website does not visit you. My website is public, you choose to enter it. You visit my website through your infrastructure to get to my infrastructure. My infrastructure is publicly available to you, should you be able to access it.

The governing body of your (second person, not you specifically) infrastructure (the UK government) chooses to impose rules on my actions. Their threat is "we'll stop letting people in our infrastructure from being able to reach your infrastructure."

That is extortion, not working in the public's favor. The UK government is saying they'll block all roads from your house that lead to my website outside of the UK. My website is overseas, brother. The UK is blocking all the ports so you can't sail here. I don't "offer services" to you in the UK, I just don't prevent people from the UK from trying to reach my island. Nothing about my services requires the UK infrastructure. My services keep operating whether the UK government exists or not. How do they have any right over my infrastructure in this scenario?

If this is about ads, the UK has all the right to remove my ads from their country. That is within their right. Anything about blocking people from the UK is within their right, sure, but that's not my problem lol. Sorry you have a shit government lol

[-] deathbird@mander.xyz 21 points 18 hours ago

I'm not sure I like the idea that you're "offering a service" in a country simply by being a data service that can accessed from it.

Someone from Australia can call me and we can chat. It doesn't mean I or my phone carrier are offering a service in Australia.

[-] x00z@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

You're right, but that also means your service can get blocked in said country. And that's what they don't want, so they're trying to fight it from home.

[-] CoffeeTails@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago

What does that mean? Arent most sites available everywhere by default?

[-] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 33 points 1 day ago

I hope this encourages more companies/sites to fight back against stupid laws. If most keep complying, it'll only get worse for them in the future when they make even worse laws.

Pull out all UK servers and ignore uk fines (assuming thats legal wherever u reside... idk how that works) or just pull out of uk.

I hope a country like switzerland or something lets companies host servers there for europe without enforcing dumb laws from uk/european union.

[-] Pamasich@kbin.earth 5 points 14 hours ago

I hope a country like switzerland or something lets companies host servers there for europe without enforcing dumb laws from uk/european union.

Not going to happen with Switzerland and EU laws. Being completely surrounded by the EU, we're really bad with leverage and are already struggling to not have worse and worse deals forced on us. Plus, we have our own Chat Control type law coming up (which is why Proton is leaving). There's no way we'll take a stance against EU law.

[-] dogs0n@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 hours ago

Wow thats a shock. I suppose the second best option would be any country outside of europe, even though the connection speed wouldn't be that fast, it would still be useable.

[-] brsrklf@jlai.lu 90 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I absolutely don't care what happens to 4chan, but UK starting to fine the internet for being available there and not complying with their bullshit is worrying.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] nandeEbisu@lemmy.world 55 points 1 day ago

Calling 4chan the most hateful site on the Internet ignores the fact that xitter is a thing.

The kind of hateful rhetoric and grooming are not unique to 4chan, they happen on Facebook, discord, and roblox. 4chan has just been a minimally filtered representation of underground online cultures for decades now meaning it's still just as much a font of creativity as it is a cesspool of internet refuse.

[-] andros_rex@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

4chan has been mostly dead as a place of creativity for years. /b/ is mostly creepshots, AI generated porn, and a guy who has been spamming a picture inviting you to eat Andy Sixx’s shit for like 5 years now. /pol/ is basically Stormfront lite.

/lit/ and /mu/ were some of the best parts of 4chan but are shells of their former selves, some of the sfw boards sometimes have things of value but it’s time to move on.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] CriticalMiss@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago

I don’t really understand how this works. If I’m a company whose entire infrastructure is in the US (for example, I don’t know if 4chan is like that) how can I get in trouble with the UK? I don’t have a legal entity there, I’m not doing any business on their soil whatsoever, how can they enforce their laws against me?

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 10 points 22 hours ago

They're "doing business" there by serving ads to their citizens, that's the legal basis for suing them. Whether that goes anywhere depends on the laws governing the business and any leverage UK has (say, going after advertising who do business with the company and in the UK).

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] stardustsystem@lemmy.world 97 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

If there's someone prepared to argue in court about why the UK's Act is a terrible idea, holy crap is it NOT 4chan

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] paraphrand@lemmy.world 51 points 1 day ago

“4chan asks Donald Trump for help”

What a weird world.

[-] sem 1 points 4 hours ago

I guess it makes sense that they're natural allies.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 64 points 1 day ago

Go 4chan!

Not often I get to say that, but this is one case.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2025
350 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

74381 readers
2506 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS