By Matt Underwood Britain issues first online safety fine to US website 4chan, and it’s a real head-scratcher for so many reasons. Firstly, the sheer audacity of trying to fine a website that’s notoriously anonymous, globally accessible, and based in the US is almost comical. It’s like trying to nail jelly to a wall. The comments are pretty much split between those who see this as a toothless gesture and those who think it’s a worrying sign of things to come.
The practicalities are what really trip people up. How do you even enforce a fine against a platform like 4chan? The servers aren’t in the UK, the people running it are likely scattered across the globe, and good luck getting any of them to willingly comply. Many are rightfully questioning how the UK plans to stop people from bypassing this. If the method of restriction is just using ISP DNS blocking, people will certainly find workarounds through DNS settings or VPNs. It feels more like an empty threat, a warning shot across the bow, than a genuine attempt to bring 4chan to heel.
The Online Safety Act itself is also under fire. The legislation is criticized for banning “regular, normal shit,” with complaints about the unintended consequences of blocking content related to mental health, dental information, and even historical topics. People are rightly concerned about the impact on their online experience. Many users are already resorting to VPNs to navigate the internet without these restrictions. There’s a sense that the Act is overly broad and heavy-handed, and that it’s doing more harm than good.
The potential implications for user privacy are also worrying. The argument is that if the fines aren’t paid and the government can’t get 4chan to take action, then it’s a slippery slope to website blocking, and perhaps to the government collecting an individual’s data. Concerns about data security are heightened when sites ask for ID and information. One user points out how an ID could easily fall into the wrong hands, leading to identity theft, which can be devastating. The user’s concerns are very valid. The argument is that you can’t completely safeguard your information or avoid a data breach.
The whole affair also highlights the fundamental tension between national jurisdiction and the borderless nature of the internet. The UK is essentially trying to impose its rules on a platform that’s hosted and operated outside of its borders. The comments make comparisons to other sites, like Reddit, to ask why only 4chan is being targeted and what might be the ultimate goal. The suggestion is that the government is using 4chan as a test case, and that bigger, more established platforms like Reddit might be next.
The conversation quickly turns to the First Amendment in the US, and whether this kind of censorship would even be possible in the US. The consensus seems to be that it would be much harder, but not impossible. The fact that the government put excessive pressure on social media apps to censor people has some of the user’s pointing out the double standard. The government might not be able to directly tell a website what it can or cannot show, but it can influence their choices. This is done through various tactics, which is clearly on display by the user base.
People are skeptical about the whole thing. Some see it as a futile attempt to control the uncontrollable, and a waste of resources. Others see it as a precursor to broader censorship and government overreach. The general feeling is that 4chan is unlikely to comply, and that the UK government is more likely to end up blocking the site entirely in the UK.
Some of the comments get into the weeds about the specifics of international law and legal precedents. The Hague Judgement Convention is brought up, which is an agreement between the UK and France. However, the comments feel that the cost of enforcing the fine is too expensive and that blocking is more likely. The comments note that the site blocking is a way to circumvent getting around a difficult international battle in court. The general consensus, however, is that 4chan doesn’t lose anything from a site ban. The government does lose, however, by allowing themselves to be shown as the bad guy in the situation.
At the end of the day, this whole situation is a microcosm of the larger debate about online freedom, censorship, and the role of governments in regulating the internet. It’s a complex issue with no easy answers, and this whole situation is far from resolved. The long and short of it is that this all seems pretty ineffective.