Readit News logoReadit News
JoshTriplett · 12 days ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbreaking:_The_Worst_Perso...

As is often the case, important defense mechanisms feel awful when they arise in the course of the worst people defending the worst people. They're still important defense mechanisms, and the UK's badly misnamed "Online Safety Act" (which will make people less safe) needs to die and never come back. But still, ugh.

noman-land · 12 days ago
This is one of ClickHole's finest masterpieces.
int32_64 · 12 days ago
America expects its citizens abroad to file taxes, and it strong-armed its allies banking systems into compliance nightmares to ensure extra-territorial enforcement of American laws.

If America wants to pressure countries over their extra-territorial enforcement of censorship laws it should repeal its taxation requirements of Americans not living in America.

wrs · 12 days ago
That analogy would make sense if Ofcom was proposing to enforce UK rules only on UK citizens living in the US.
int32_64 · 12 days ago
The main point is that America demands aggressive compliance with its laws from allies outside of US jurisdiction, and making a law that says other countries can make no demands of the US will frustrate the relationship between nations, especially during a time when America is seen as particularly aggressive, like placing heavy tariffs on its closest allies.
daft_pink · 12 days ago
GDPR is leveraged against companies for European citizens living in other countries.

Dead Comment

Aloisius · 12 days ago
I'm confused as to why the State Department would confirm Congress was going to introduce or pass legislation.

They're not exactly involved in the process.

iamnothere · 12 days ago
The legislation is part of a diplomatic conflict currently ongoing with the UK/EU (which is State’s domain). It would make sense for them to release a statement if they believe it could grant some kind of advantage in that conflict.
ImPostingOnHN · 12 days ago
You probably thought congress would always be involved in lawmaking. But what enforced that?

"Precedent"?

wmf · 12 days ago
I've read a decent amount about this topic and I still don't understand why a law is needed or what it would do. If you have no presence in the UK they can fine you, you can simply not pay the fine, and you have to remember to never travel to the UK so they don't arrest you. It's not clear that a US law could somehow prevent the UK from fining you.
chrisjj · 11 days ago
It is simply posturing.

The claim that this UK action is an attack on the US First Amendment is absurd. That amendment is merely a limitation on the powers of Congress, and is irrelevant to the powers of the UK.

Deleted Comment

joelthelion · 11 days ago
If this goes on, we could end up with separate regional networks instead of a big internet. A bit like what is already going on in China.
crusty · 11 days ago
This.

The logical response to non- compliance with your country's regulations is simply to block them. 4chan probably won't care, but that's what will keep the bigger players like X and Meta engaged in some way. They won't want to be cut off from the European market, and a precedent set that 'non-awful' governments are justified to block them.

Of course, all this a month after the US invaded another country to snatch their president and his wife to put them on trial for US "crimes" they supposedly committed while not in the US and while not being Americans abroad. I wonder if the murdering of ~100 people in that operation is a crime there that those on the US would be expected to answer for \s. It's all so stupidly rich.

Deleted Comment

techblueberry · 12 days ago
What in the sovereignty?
Imustaskforhelp · 12 days ago
Oh yeah now its behind a paywall 7.99$

(Satire but on a serious note, there are so many wtf moments happening right now where one gets concerned where the world is headed at this point from UK,US and many other countries having these dystopian actions from what I can tell)