JoshTriplett 13 hours 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 9 hours ago
This is one of ClickHole's finest masterpieces.
int32_64 13 hours 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 13 hours 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 hours 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.
bitcurious 12 hours ago
Is that the point? Seems to me that if US citizens abroad pay taxes, they should be entitled to US government protection from censorship.
daft_pink 12 hours ago
GDPR is leveraged against companies for European citizens living in other countries.
Aloisius 13 hours 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 11 hours 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 hours ago
You probably thought congress would always be involved in lawmaking. But what enforced that?

"Precedent"?

wmf 7 hours 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 3 hours 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.

techblueberry 13 hours ago
What in the sovereignty?
Imustaskforhelp 12 hours 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)

chrisjj 13 hours ago
> Ofcom’s censorship of Americans in America

Really? Where and when?

nozzlegear 13 hours ago
I believe they're talking about 4Chan. There's a timeline linked in the article, but tldr this Ofcom (isp I guess?) has been trying to force 4chan to use age verification on all visitors in compliance with UK law, even though 4chan is based in the US.

> 12/4/2025: Ofcom writes to 4chan again, claiming it is “expanding its investigation” into the site for not age-verifying its users. Ofcom explains that although it is “a UK-based regulator… that does not mean the rules do not apply to sites based abroad.”

Edit: after reading through the legal correspondences, it looks like Ofcom has been trying to get 4chan to produce cooperate with its investigation into whether or not it complies with the UK's Online Safety Act. 4chan didn't respond to the first two inquiries from Ofcom, so Ofcom has been attempting to fine them according to the Act.

https://prestonbyrne.com/2025/10/16/the-ofcom-files/

chrisjj 13 hours ago
> Ofcom (isp I guess?) has been trying to force 4chan to use age verification on all visitors in compliance with UK law,

All? I think not.

"The Act only requires that services take action to protect users in the UK - it does not require them to protect users anywhere else in the world. The measures that Ofcom recommends providers take to comply with their duties only relate to the design or operation of the service in the UK or as it affects UK users."

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...

replooda 11 hours ago
> VPNs ... can enable people to access online services in a way ... they do not benefit from protections required by the Online Safety Act

They sound like abusive partners of the "you're confused, I'm doing this for your own good" variety. It must have taken real discipline, resisting the urge to add an "or else" somewhere, perhaps a few iterations of "I'm going to marry you someday, Lorraine!"

JoshTriplett 12 hours ago
You are taking ofcom's statements at face value and assuming them to be accurate, rather than blatant lies and spin. And even to the extent that that statement were true, it's still overreach to claim any ability to regulate companies outside their jurisdiction. It is not the responsibility of people outside their jurisdiction to help them oppress their citizens; it's just more politically safe to attempt extraterritorial enforcement than it is to put up a country-wide firewall.
chrisjj 3 hours ago
> You are taking ofcom's statements at face value and assuming them to be accurate, rather than blatant lies and spin.

No I am not. I've verified those statements against the Online Safety Act itself.

Please feel free to substantiate your suggestion they are "blatant lies and spin".