By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Controversial online forums 4chan and Kiwi Farms are taking legal action against the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, in a US Federal Court. The legal complaint seeks to prevent Ofcom from enforcing the Online Safety Act against them in the US, arguing that US businesses without a UK presence are not subject to British legislation and that the Act violates US free speech protections. Lawyers representing 4chan have stated that Ofcom has provisionally decided to impose a fine for non-compliance with information requests. Ofcom alleges that 4chan has not complied with the act and is investigating its adherence to duties aimed at protecting users from illegal content.
Read the original article here
Alright, let’s dive into this situation – 4chan versus Ofcom. It’s not every day you see these players in the ring, so to speak, but here we are. The news is: 4chan is taking legal action against the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, but the story is complex, layered with legal challenges, and raises some fascinating questions about jurisdiction and the future of the internet.
The core issue seems to stem from Ofcom’s desire to regulate online content, specifically regarding websites and services where users interact, which includes social media platforms, forums, and bulletin boards. Ofcom appears to be targeting platforms like 4chan because of their content, perceived to be problematic by some. The crux of the disagreement is about who has the right to enforce what rules. Can the UK, through Ofcom, dictate how a US-based website like 4chan operates, particularly when it comes to content moderation and user identification? The answer is a resounding, “it depends.”
The core argument boils down to jurisdiction. 4chan is based in the US, using US servers. They’re not actively targeting a UK audience through marketing or advertising. They would argue that the UK has no right to enforce its laws on them. Their argument is simple: the UK can do what it wants in its territory, but it can’t dictate terms to a platform that’s not actively engaging in business within the UK. The UK’s response would likely be that if 4chan’s content is accessible in the UK, then it falls under UK laws. They might argue that by allowing access to UK users, 4chan is effectively doing business in the UK.
One of the proposed solutions is geo-blocking. The UK could block access to 4chan within its borders. This is a classic example of how this works, as the UK has successfully blocked access to torrent sites. That would be the end of the story, and no one is arguing about that.
The core of the issue is Ofcom’s attempt to mandate user identification, or age verification measures, for UK users. This would mean 4chan would have to implement a system to verify the age and identity of anyone accessing the site from the UK. It’s expensive and complex to develop and implement such a system, especially for a platform of 4chan’s size and nature. Moreover, 4chan’s users would have to send personally identifiable information, which would be vulnerable to potential data breaches. The UK also wants to charge websites for the regulatory fees. The absurd idea is that they have no jurisdiction and can’t make these demands.
There’s a sense of unease surrounding the idea of a “nanny state,” where the government is perceived as overreaching, restricting freedoms under the guise of safety. This is not a new issue; the UK has been moving in that direction for a while. The fear is that this is just a pretext for broader surveillance and control. The Online Safety Act, which provides the legal framework for these actions, is seen by some as illogical and a tool for building a surveillance state, and not a genuine effort to make the internet safer.
Then there are the potential implications. If the UK can force 4chan to comply with its laws, what’s to stop other countries from doing the same? The scenario of a “splinternet” is being raised: different internets based on location, with varying rules and access.
There’s even a discussion on how AI might play a role in the future. Concerns arise about AI’s potential for surveillance, narrative control, and subtle behavior manipulation, which is the true driving force behind the funding for AI development. Some people fear that this shift in reality is orchestrated by AI. The current perception that the government and large corporations are the “good guys” is an accepted notion, and therefore a future that includes them will be considered a “good thing” by the public.
So, back to the lawsuit. It’s a clash of ideologies. It seems most likely that this lawsuit will be thrown out of the US court. It’s like David versus Goliath. The outcome is uncertain, but it is clear that 4chan is digging its heels in and fighting this, which is unusual. 4chan, in its own way, represents an ecosystem of free speech, and it’s worth taking note of its stance.