>IMPLYING
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2022
OFCOM could only realistically go after those with infrastructure built within the UK itself (Radio towers, tv broadcasters, ISPs), which they have done previously (anti-piracy stuff put the responsibility on ISPs, not the websites themselves) so them going after individual websites with huge fines was definitely an attempt to get cash versus the stated message of protecting kids. We know this is the case because they've gone after video websites prior, the biggest of which was Bitchute, which was based within and operated out of a UK office. The OSA was basically a gsmble which didn't pay off, and there was a way of doing this draconian bullshit without inviting a lawsuit:
Find objectionable website (determined by own, arbitrary criteria) -> email the website owner letting them know it's in breach of UK law and can fall back within it by amending certain criteria -> approach ISPs telling them to ban access to domain or face fine under OSA ala piracy websites -> website is now non-accessible for UK users whilst also leaving website owners personally unthreatened.
It's still shit, but it basically still follows the same rules with TV and radio. The channel might not own the specific programme but if it's still a "no-no" show, then they can pull it from the air without punishing HBO or something for having made it. You don't punish the signal itself, you punish the person broadcasting it, but the OSA is trying to do so anyway.
Regardless, I think Ofcom's 2-week extension is to determine whether or not they are a government entity or a sovereign one in their arguments, which has as much significance on UK law in general as it does the implications for the OSA.
If they are "private" then it means any attempt at enforcement without the actual "force" component of "enforcing a fine" is moot not just for 4chan and kiwifarms but basically any non-UK entity targeted by them. It'll effectively make any attempt to impose a fine on Facebook or Google impossible leaving the only qualifying jurisdictions as far as their reach is concerned are strictly UK-based companies. It acts as a massive blow to their actual power projection and it means individuals can drag their feet as far as responding to actual fines is concerned because Ofcom itself has to actually be able to carry out and enforce the fine themselves rather than rely on the implication of having the UK government's backing (like with the TV loisonce). If they are indeed a government entity and not independent, it's just as Null and others say and it's the UK government vastly overreaching with its own authority and they simply cannot do that unless the consequences of not abiding by UK law apply to those actually violating said law on UK soil. It would also mean that, yes, the UK government itself is directly involved in censorship of websites and tv with no degree of separation between the law and the people carrying it out.
This case could have hitherto unconsidered implications for the state of Ofcom and other quasi-independent UK government entities, so that's pretty neat.
Find objectionable website (determined by own, arbitrary criteria) -> email the website owner letting them know it's in breach of UK law and can fall back within it by amending certain criteria -> approach ISPs telling them to ban access to domain or face fine under OSA ala piracy websites -> website is now non-accessible for UK users whilst also leaving website owners personally unthreatened.
It's still shit, but it basically still follows the same rules with TV and radio. The channel might not own the specific programme but if it's still a "no-no" show, then they can pull it from the air without punishing HBO or something for having made it. You don't punish the signal itself, you punish the person broadcasting it, but the OSA is trying to do so anyway.
Regardless, I think Ofcom's 2-week extension is to determine whether or not they are a government entity or a sovereign one in their arguments, which has as much significance on UK law in general as it does the implications for the OSA.
If they are "private" then it means any attempt at enforcement without the actual "force" component of "enforcing a fine" is moot not just for 4chan and kiwifarms but basically any non-UK entity targeted by them. It'll effectively make any attempt to impose a fine on Facebook or Google impossible leaving the only qualifying jurisdictions as far as their reach is concerned are strictly UK-based companies. It acts as a massive blow to their actual power projection and it means individuals can drag their feet as far as responding to actual fines is concerned because Ofcom itself has to actually be able to carry out and enforce the fine themselves rather than rely on the implication of having the UK government's backing (like with the TV loisonce). If they are indeed a government entity and not independent, it's just as Null and others say and it's the UK government vastly overreaching with its own authority and they simply cannot do that unless the consequences of not abiding by UK law apply to those actually violating said law on UK soil. It would also mean that, yes, the UK government itself is directly involved in censorship of websites and tv with no degree of separation between the law and the people carrying it out.
This case could have hitherto unconsidered implications for the state of Ofcom and other quasi-independent UK government entities, so that's pretty neat.
