Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users
73 comments
·August 17, 2025IlivedinUK
bbg2401
Why has this hysterical hyperbole become the norm when discussing the UK? It feels like a prolonged disinformation attack.
dzhiurgis
Which part is disinformation? Personally I find it a bit hilarious, that's about it.
I've lived in UK, originally from Eastern Europe and now live in NZ and been working and unfortunately following US politics for a bit so kinda interesting to see observe from outside.
Hizonner
Somehow I feel like Ofcom and 4chan deserve each other.
null
rahidz
4chan's response (through lawyers): https://x.com/prestonjbyrne/status/1956391746029428914
Full text:
"BYRNE & STORM, P.C.
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
Re: Statement Regarding Ofcom's Reported Provisional Notice - 4chan Community Support LLC
Byrne & Storm, P.C. ( @ByrneStorm ) and Coleman Law, P.C. ( @RonColeman ) represent 4chan Community Support LLC ("4chan").
According to press reports, the U.K. Office of Communications ("Ofcom") has issued a provisional notice under the Online Safety Act alleging a contravention by 4chan and indicating an intention to impose a penalty of £20,000, plus daily penalties thereafter.
4chan is a United States company, incorporated in Delaware, with no establishment, assets, or operations in the United Kingdom. Any attempt to impose or enforce a penalty against 4chan will be resisted in U.S. federal court.
American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an e-mail. Under settled principles of U.S. law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes.
If necessary, we will seek appropriate relief in U.S. federal court to confirm these principles.
United States federal authorities have been briefed on this matter.
The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, was reportedly warned by the White House to cease targeting Americans with U.K. censorship codes (according to reporting in the Telegraph on July 30th).
Despite these warnings, Ofcom continues its illegal campaign of harassment against American technology firms. A political solution to this matter is urgently required and that solution must come from the highest levels of American government.
We call on the Trump Administration to invoke all diplomatic and legal levers available to the United States to protect American companies from extraterritorial censorship mandates.
Our client reserves all rights."
Barbing
Thanks - so instead they’ll be sued by someone under those new US state laws that cover sites featuring some % of adult content?
(There was a worrisome blog post someone shared here on HN a few weeks ago.)
arcfour
No.
linkage
[flagged]
ivan_gammel
It’s funny. Their “Advertise” page explicitly mentions UK on demographics section (7% of users). Both Advertise and Rules pages explicitly mention local along with US laws. It looks like they actually do business in UK serving ads to UK users and thus should be subject to local laws themselves.
narrator
If they want their assets, they will have to use U.S courts to get them and U.S courts will refuse to enforce British law that violates the first amendment. It's pretty simple actually. If they had assets in Britain, then they could get to them, but they don't.
ivan_gammel
They can just treat 4chan as malware server or a drug cartel. There exist sanction mechanisms against foreign entities that do not use local law enforcement in which case opinion of US courts will be irrelevant.
frumplestlatz
Serving ads to UK users does not grant the UK enforcement jurisdiction over 4chan. They have no presence, assets, or agents in the UK. If the UK still attempts to issue a judgement contrary to the first amendment, the constitution in general, and/or US law, it will not be recognized by US courts.
In short, the UK can kick rocks.
ivan_gammel
Nobody in the world cares about US constitution or opinion of US courts. It is absolutely irrelevant. If American company does business somewhere and breaks local laws, that part of their business can be disrupted or shut down (by blocking traffic, restricting financial transactions to certain entities, blocking shipments), executives may be arrested on arrival, there may be secondary sanctions etc.
This is absolutely common practice happening everywhere. There is a firewall in every country. Think of malware servers that America blocks.
8note
the UK could block access to 4chan, or block the ability for 4chan to sell ads in the UK
bloak
To me that response seems ridiculous in several ways. If they think that UK law doesn't apply to them (which seems very credible) why react at all? Describing what Ofcom is doing, which is, as far as I can tell, just doing the job it was set up to do, as "illegal"? Suggesting that 4chan has some connection to "technology firms"?
If they were going to write anything at all, how about "I fart in your general direction"?
bentley
> If they think that UK law doesn't apply to them (which seems very credible) why react at all?
If I get a speeding ticket in the mail from another state I've never been to, I'm not going to ignore it, I'm going to explain to the court why it's invalid. Ignoring legal notices, even from other jurisdictions than one's own, is generally unwise (with some exceptions). So is responding with insults instead of concrete legal justification for why this is inapplicable.
frumplestlatz
The response is effectively that, but with a framing much more amenable to their own future defense on both legal and political fronts, if ever required.
jacquesm
It worked quite well in the reverse direction for BetOnSports. Companies tend to underestimate the reach of governments, even governments they are not nominally the subject of.
rr808
USA is all about free speech because the big tech companies are in USA and behind closed doors do what the US Government tells them. If Meta/Google/Twitter/TikTok were foreign companies they'd likely be banned or regulated to be allowed to operate here.
mostlysimilar
The big tech companies are currently lobbying the US government to bring identity verification laws to us at a federal level. They stand to grow even more rich and even more powerful by being the gatekeepers of identity. Imagine if you could only log in to Hacker News by using your Google account.
It will kill whatever is left of small independent communities on the internet, and it's a disaster for free speech.
userbinator
TikTok? I know there's a fight going on with it but I believe it's still Chinese owned.
rr808
Its partially owned by ByteDance but a separate entity with majority US investors. https://usds.tiktok.com/usds-myths-vs-facts
> TikTok Inc., which offers the TikTok app in the United States, is incorporated in California and Delaware, and is subject to U.S. laws and regulations governing privacy and data security.
daft_pink
Pretty sure the USA position has to do with the us constitution. Just saying
aredox
[flagged]
the_third_wave
Could you give some examples which refer to the activities you accuse him of? Examples of actual violations of the Constitution of the United States, that is, not just examples of him deciding things you happen to disagree with.
wakawaka28
USA is all about free speech because it is literally the first right in the Bill of Rights. Regardless of the extensive infringements we've suffered against our basic human rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, there is a limit to how far they can take it.
nubinetwork
[flagged]
Ralfp
EU requires legal presence on our soil for US tech giants, so they usually open offices in Ireland because thats cheapest.
null
theodric
"f-elon"? Was he convicted of something?
null
Jigsy
Anon must be quaking in their boots.
ranger_danger
Why do they think that organizations who operate completely outside of the UK, accept no money from UK citizens or otherwise do business there, fall within their jurisdiction? I think realistically all that could happen is they tell ISPs to block it.
amiga-workbench
They do accept money from UK citizens, you can buy a 4chan pass to skip the captcha. I've done so in the past.
trothamel
A bagel shop in Manhattan also accepts money from UK citizens, but that doesn't mean it's subject to UK law.
ivan_gammel
If that bagel shop will ship bagels to UK soil or accepting money from UK citizens who are currently in UK as 4chan does, it will be subject to UK laws regardless of whether it has legal presence, assets etc. This is not matter of jurisdiction as some of commenters here believe.
UK has limited enforcement options, of course, but it’s their sovereign right to prevent illegal activities and/or punish for them within their capabilities. This is why 4chan lawyers are asking for political response as if UK were a rogue American colony.
ranger_danger
I don't think crypto housed outside the UK counts, but I could be wrong. But it's not like there is a UK arm of the company they can even sue.
wakawaka28
What are they gonna do, stop UK citizens from spending money how they want? Or will they try to invade the US again? Lol
null
Retr0id
> they tell ISPs to block it
Seems likely. And then that won't work, and they'll tell ISPs to block VPN traffic too.
bloak
ISPs blocking it will mostly work, I think. Most people can't be bothered with a VPN so if 4chan is inaccessible they'll just read/watch something else instead.
Retr0id
In the days following the enforcement of age verification legislation, VPNs were trending in the UK app store charts, above age verification apps.
Even today NordVPN is in the #5 spot, above Uber and Google.
andai
I think you can't post on 4chan if you're using a VPN.
dzhiurgis
Elon needs to release Starlink Freedom Edition. He should've bought 4chan rather than Twitter too lol.
theodric
I think you severely underestimate the tech savviness and community-seeking of 4chan users. They'll figure it out.
nubinetwork
I wouldn't put it past them, they've already ran tv news pieces (or maybe it was an ad, I don't watch tv, let alone British tv) basically saying that if you use a VPN, that you're not thinking of the children.
madaxe_again
You wouldn’t steal a car…
daft_pink
Maybe they will say British citizens use it in foreign countries as their loophole. I don’t agree with it and I’m not a lawyer but I’m just predicting their argument.
torium
Sounds like the same argument that Russia uses to invades its neighbors. "There's Russians there, therefore..."
BrenBarn
Okay, but that's still not 4chan's problem. A company with no nexus in the UK has no reason to care about UK law in any way, shape, or form.
ivan_gammel
According to their Advertise page, UK is 7% of their audience. Their reaction looks like they care.
ben_w
> or otherwise do business
If they can be used in the UK, then the same general principle applies here as with pirate radio and over-the-horizon artillery.
The attempt is unlikely to work, but with Trump who knows, so they will probably indeed tell ISPs to block it.
boppo1
4chan will win, american techbros will celebrate, then in a year the US will pass some sort of KYC.
Surveillance is inevitable.
userbinator
Only with that defeatist attitude will it be inevitable.
schoen
A great and inspiring example is the SOPA/PIPA thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Opposit...
Now, there are other less inspiring examples (e.g. SESTA/FOSTA)! and this didn't somehow form a durable political consensus (or an entrenched legal principle), but people looking at this issue in advance would have thought, and did think, that obviously this legislation would pass. And then it didn't.
null
MikeTheGreat
genuine question: what is a "KYC"?
torium
Disgusting.
If I access 4chan only through tor, will I be safe from these tirants?
userbinator
It's been a long time since I've had anything to do with 4chan but I believe Tor was blocked because of how often it was used to post illegal (in the US) content.
ranger_danger
It works for reading at least, no idea about posting.
null
The only allowed website in UK internet will become the BBC (and HMRC!).
Imagine living in such an ugly country with a terrible economy and yet have to suffer a North Korean government