4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence. Irony is overwhelming
68 comments
·October 17, 2025tasuki
LordN00b
There is plenty of precedence for this, and I am about to fudge a bunch of details. The basic point is that the United Kingdom can make any law it sees fit to any place or person. Even though it may only exercise punitive issues once they arrival inside the physical jurisdiction. So the example I was taught, the UK can pass a law banning smoking in Paris, but may not arrest/fine until such criminal trespassers get off the ferry in UK. This means that the Sovereign power is omni-whatevers, unless you explicitly say otherwise eg The UK Legislated their way out of South Africa and Canada expilictly. If 4Chans money ever passes through a UK bank, I'm sure Ofcom will grab what they can. It's a very British shakedown.
pavlov
It’s presumably meant to be effective against global corporations like Meta and Google that have significant operations in the UK. They can be liable for non-compliance globally and Ofcom doesn’t have to show it occurred within the UK.
jojobas
Yep, then and their German counterpart have many times asked Facebook to censor stuff for the entire world and they've complied every time.
jojobas
The concern is they decide a site non-compliant, can't do shit about it in absence of British presence, then go after Britons accessing the site.
Kiwifarms stopped serving UK IPs, not because of fear of enforcement but rather because they don't anyone British jailed. The UK landing page straight up says 'use Tor'.
HPsquared
They want to block things, but don't want the optics of being one of "those" countries with a national firewall. So we get things like this.
epanchin
Is there a solution where we can compel parental control to be enabled by default on kids phones?
That would seem to be least intrusive option.
Using the internet in the UK/EU is such a horrible experience, every cookie pop-up is a reminder how badly thought out these rules are.
smilingsun
It's very easy to make websites without needing cookie popups in EU/UK. Every cookie popup is a reminder of how stale the thinking around tracking and data sharing is!
scrlk
UK mobile networks and ISPs have had age-restricted content filtering enabled by default since ~2013-14.
This policy was pushed by David Cameron, who was the prime minister at the time:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-internet-and-porn...
MaKey
> Using the internet in the UK/EU is such a horrible experience, every cookie pop-up is a reminder how badly thought out these rules are.
Technical cookies don't require any consent so every time you see a cookie banner the website owner wants to gather more data about you than necessary. Furthermore, these rules don't require cookie banners, it's what the industry has chosen as the way to get consent to track their users.
wiredfool
Having done several rounds with parental control, I'd say -- nfw. We were worried more about timesink than anything else, but over a long period of time, it mainly boils down to knowing your kids, trusting them, with checkups. The tech is just not there to actually control what happens on a device.
White listing worked for a while (months) when they were young, but it was super-high touch and stuff just broke all the time. You try to whitelist a site, but you have to then figure out all their CDNs.
Restricting specific sites works, sort of, until they find some place that hosts that content. Blocking youtube doesn't work(*), every search engine has a watch videos feature. (Why are you spending 3 hours a day on DDG?) There's really no way to segment youtube into "videos they need to watch for school" and "viral x hour minecraft playthrough". Somehow, we've managed to combine the biggest time waste ever with a somewhat useful for education hosting service.
That's leaving out the jailbreaks that come from finding an app's unfiltered webview and getting an open web escape there.
There's basically no reliable method for filtering even on locked down platforms.
* there's probably a way to kill it at the firewall based on dns, but that's iffy for phones and it's network wide.
PaulKeeble
Age restricted filtering of the internet is the default on all UK mobile networks as far as I know, it might even be the law that it defaults to filtering. You have to actually ring them up and say you want the filtering switched off or some do it as part of the sign up process.
All the routers also come with filtering settings as well and ISPs ship with the filtering on by default, since that is the law and has been for several decades.
blue_cookeh
It's generally just a toggle in the account settings so no need for a phone call, but yes. It is default-on when you take out a new broadband connection or mobile phone contract.
GardenLetter27
The cookie popups is such a painful representation of Europe tech in general.
Like you can configure your browser to do whatever you want with cookies - blocking them all, blocking only third party ones, etc. - there is no need for government regulation here.
But the legislators are completely tech illiterate and even the general public supports more interference and regulation.
Cthulhu_
Sure, but you'd need to apply it to all phones, because what's stopping a kid from buying an adult smartphone if they have the money? And smartphones can be dirt cheap.
Also remember that the pop-up is an industry choice, the rules only mandate that a user should opt in, not how. No laws mandate the cookie banners, no regulations say they should be obnoxious.
alias_neo
> Sure, but you'd need to apply it to all phones, because what's stopping a kid from buying an adult smartphone
There's no need, that's already the case.
All phones (the network account attached to the SIM actually, not the phone itself) comes with a content filter enabled by default in the UK, adult or not.
xethos
> All phones (the network account attached to the SIM actually, not the phone itself) comes with a content filter enabled by default in the UK, adult or not.
Neither resident nor frequent visitor to the UK, so I'm behind the times when I ask: I beg your fucking pardon?
Is there further reading on this inane nanny-state horror, ideally via a Wikipedia article on the law or gentleman's agreement amongst the carriers?
Furthermore, is this more common than I assume, and I simply don't notice because I don't stray too far from the mainstream?
xxs
I suppose it'd be the same thing in the UK - kids cannot buy knives.
ajsnigrutin
> Sure, but you'd need to apply it to all phones, because what's stopping a kid from buying an adult smartphone if they have the money? And smartphones can be dirt cheap.
What's to stop that same kid to buy a porno dvd? Or to download a torrent of a porno? Or a porn magazine?
HPsquared
Come to think of it, parental control would be a neat application for something like Apple Intelligence. A local system service that is "trustworthy enough" to monitor everything on screen, and written content too.
spuz
I don't understand why the British government's solution is to impose orders on British ISPs as they have done with other websites that they want to block, rather than try to impose on a company based in another country.
paxiongmap
"The least bad thing that Ofcom and the Government could do is to quietly let the matter drop whilst focusing on education."
This generalises very well for all Government. Shame we're a couple of generations into education being about producing pliant workers over independent, thinking human beings.
ntoskrnl_exe
It seems to me the UK isn’t all that aware of just how gone are the days of the British Empire. I can imagine the OSA being somewhat relevant internationally in the pre-handover days, but not today.
cdfsdsadsa
>The way we protect British kids from the Internet is to make better and more capable Britons, rather than to try and kidproof the entire internet.
If only it were that easy. For me as a parent, my approach is to implement a "Great personal firewall" - that is, internet restrictions that decrease over time as they mature, and starting with essentially zero access. Unfortunately, it's probably doomed to fail as other kids their age (5 + 7) and in their peer groups are already walking around with smartphones.
To put it bluntly, too many parents are too unenaged and lazy (or self-centered).
vkazanov
Same problem. Tried to balance some kind of freedom with limitations but it just didn't work. Then I found discord, read through some chats...
Now it's just outright forbidden to have anything with a chat. And no Internet.
The problem is that other 10 year old have mobiles, free PC access, etc, so there constant peer pressure.
Woodi
Some peoples are funny :) And there are parents ;)
Kids go to school, have lessons, right ? And few minutes breaks between lessons ? How that parents want to censorship what kids talk about ? Not to mention phones use. And why exactly ?
Thing is as it always is: parents make fundamens in culture/world view eg via their views and religion they subscribe. And then society and reality takes over. What society you have ?
mkesper
Adults grooming children in chats is absolutely a thing, this is completely different from talking any way they feel like to their peers face to face.
Cthulhu_
Exactly, plus there's free, mostly unrestricted wifi everywhere. If your child has some pocket or birthday money they can freely spend, they can walk into an electronics store, buy a cheap smartphone or tablet and have unrestricted access.
At home measures are at best a delay, not a fix. What you also have to do is actually communicate with your child. If you're strict about what they can and cannot do on the internet, they will feel shame for doing it anyway, which may also mean they would be too ashamed to talk to their parents if for example they are getting groomed online.
cdfsdsadsa
That was originally going to be my plan - my kids can have a smartphone when they can afford to buy one themselves. I figured that by this point they would be old and experienced enough to deal with it. As I pointed out above, some of their peers at ages 5-7 already have parentally-supplied smartphones. It sucks that I'm probably going to have to talk to my currently 5-year-old girl very soon about what the internet has to offer.
hdgvhicv
If the government wanted to do something it would enforce optional controls for the bill payer, and provide decent training (via videos and in person in libraries) on how to use parental controls.
I tried setting up parental controls on Fortnite and it was a nightmare, having threats multiple accounts with multiple providers, it felt very much designed to force people to go “ahh forget it”.
Cthulhu_
> it would enforce optional controls for the bill payer,
They do; in the UK, if you want to have access to porn, you need to tell your ISP and they will unblock it.
Of course, that's a game of whack-a-mole because you can render porn in Minecraft servers or join one of many communities on Whatsapp or Discord if needs be. It mainly blocks the well-known bigger porn sites.
est
I have thought about this for a really, really long time.
The conclusion is, it's a service problem, not a howto-block problem
kid-friendly content is under supplied and often bad maintained.
To quote GabeN: Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem
Cthulhu_
How much would be enough supply, in your opinion? Because there is a lot, there is no shortage.
But it's not forbidden or hidden away, so kids aren't curious about it.
est
> Because there is a lot, there is no shortage.
Yes, but the problem is, many (if not most) of those content or services were created by adults and dispised by kids.
pick one your kid's most interested topic, are there enough kid-friendly content/services that fulfills all the needs?
quitit
I believe it should be a layered approach.
1. Educate children about bad actors and scams. (We already do this in off-line contexts.)
2. Use available tools to limit exposure. Without this children will run into such content even when not seeking it. As demonstrated with Tiktok seemingly sending new accounts to sexualised content,(1) and Google/Meta's pathetic ad controls.
3. Be firm about when is the right age to have their own phone. There is zero possibility that they'll be able to have one secretly without a responsible parent discovering it.
4. Schools should not permit phone use during school time (enforced in numerous regions already.)
5. If governments have particular issues with websites, they can use their existing powers to block or limit access. While this is "whack-a-mole", the idea of asking each offshore offending website to comply is also "whack-a-mole" and a longer path to the intended goal.
6. Don't make the EU's "cookies" mistake. E.g. If the goal is to block tracking, then outlaw tracking, do not enact proxy rules that serve only as creative challenges to keep the status quo.
and the big one:
7. Parents must accept that their children will be exposed at some level, and need to be actively involved in the lives of their children so they can answer questions. This also means parenting in a way that doesn't condemn the child needlessly - condemnation is a sure strategy to ensure that the child won't approach their parents for help or with their questions.
Also some tips:
1. Set an example on appropriate use of social media. Doom scrolling on Tiktok and instagram in front of children is setting a bad example. Some housekeeping on personal behaviours will have a run on effect.
2. If they have social media accounts the algorithm is at some point going to recommend them to you. Be vigilant, but also handle the situation appropriately, jumping to condemnation just makes the child better at hiding their activity.
3. Don't post photos of your children online. It's not just an invasion of their privacy, but pedophile groups are known to collect, categorise and share even seemingly benign photos.
1. https://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/digital-threats/tikto...
willis936
The government can't make parents not be bad parents.
skeezyjefferson
in all seriousness, what do you fear?
cdfsdsadsa
Abusive online relationships. An attention-suck that I can't handle as an adult, with the corresponding lack of development of other life skills that I consider essential to a successful and fulfilled life.
I say "I consider", because skills self-evidently essential to a good life (emotional regulation, focus and attention span, ability to read other people's emotional states, effective communication, physical skills) are increasingly not generally considered that way.
skeezyjefferson
in terms of speech development, TV was found to be a massive benefit in increasing vocabulary - how are you so sure the internet (nebulously defined as that is) is detrimental to communication abilities, arent they on there talking to their friends?. And if we are talking about the internet in general and not just twitter/tiktok, then its largely NOT doomscrolling and ragebait. Hackernews (heck, every single news organisation EVER) has an "algorithm" for "increasing engagement", books are written to increase engagement, its been going on for centuries but only since social media appeared do we suddenly dislike it.
eqvinox
Okay, but just blocking content isn't much better than being unengaged, in the long term. They will get exposed anyway, if only from a friend (whose parents are unengaged and lazy) who has no restrictions on their phone. The important thing is to teach and train media skills. Teaching an understanding that comment sections are cesspools and amplify negative feedback. Teaching that people flame because it's so much easier than keeping silent, or putting in the thought to say something useful. Teaching that there are truly horrendous things on the Internet.
cdfsdsadsa
That's exactly my point. They are likely to get exposed to the worst of the internet at a significantly younger age than they will have the maturity and experience to handle (and younger than I can have any hope of trying to coach them in), all thanks to parents who give young kids (I'm talking 8 and younger) smartphones to keep them quiet.
My oldest girl is 5. She's already very aware that other kids in her class have access to tablets and phones. How on earth do I responsibly explain to her the dangers? I have enough trouble asking her to get dressed and keep her nappy dry at night.
ridruejo
This is a really well-written article. The whole thing is so absurd and this makes it so clear.
cdfsdsadsa
FWIW I agree with the intent of the Act, and am generally in favour of a sovereign firewall.
Edit: In a nutshell - almost every other transfer of goods and services across national borders is subject to quality standards. Why do we give a pass to a system that allows deep, individualised access to people's personal lives and mental processes?
probably_wrong
Right now you're downvoted for expressing an opinion that I believe deserves a deeper discussion.
I don't want the government to decide which thoughts I can access and which ones I can't, but I also understand that allowing a foreign power (let's say Russia, although "the US" works just as fine) to freely run undercover propaganda and/or destabilization campaigns without any recourse doesn't look good either. And while I agree with "when in doubt aim for the option with more freedom", I can understand those who share your position.
null
cess11
I'd like for someone to do a parental rights case at the ECHR against this, e.g. by claiming that according to their religion and traditional culture kids in their teens should be getting into contact with porn, snuff and the like, and that they as parents have a right to transfer this to their kids.
aboringusername
Just reading the first correspondence from Ofcom and this section in particular:
> What should I do if there is confidential information in my response?
> You must provide all the information requested, even if you consider that the information, or any part of it, is confidential (for example, because of its commercial sensitivity).
> If you consider that any of the information you are required to provide is confidential, you should clearly identify the relevant information and explain in writing your reasons for considering it confidential (for example, the reasons why you consider disclosure of the information will seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of your business, a third party or the private affairs of an individual. You may find it helpful to do this in a separate document marked ‘confidential information’
> Ofcom will take into account any claims that information should be considered confidential. However, it is for Ofcom to decide what is or is not confidential, taking into account any relevant common law and statutory definitions. We do not accept unjustified or unsubstantiated claims of confidentiality. Blanket claims of confidentiality covering entire documents or types of information are also unhelpful and will rarely be accepted. For example, we would expect stakeholders to consider whether the fact of the document’s existence or particular elements of the document (e.g. its title or metadata such as to/from/date/subject or other specific content) are not confidential. You should therefore identify specific words, numbers, phrases or pieces of information you consider to be confidential. You may also find it helpful to categorise your explanations as Category A, Category B etc
> Any confidential information provided to Ofcom is subject to restrictions on its further disclosure under the common law of confidence. In many cases, information provided to Ofcom is also subject to statutory restrictions relating to the disclosure of that information (regardless of whether that information is confidential information). For this reason, we do not generally consider it necessary to sign non-disclosure agreements. Our general approach to the disclosure of information is set out below.
> For the avoidance of doubt, you are not required to provide information that is legally privileged and you can redact specific parts of documents that are legally privileged. However, where you withhold information on the basis that it is privileged you should provide Ofcom with a summary of the nature of the information and an explanation of why you consider it to be privileged. Please note that just because an email is sent to or from a legal adviser does not mean it is necessarily a legally privileged communication. Further information is available in paragraph 3.18 of our Online Safety Information Powers Guidance.
So ofcom's position is:
We want your data, you will give us your data, the GDPR does not apply to you, and if it does, we will decide whether it does. You must explain yourself to us. You must not redact anything. Even if you think you can redact anything (you know, because GDPR) you cannot redact anything. The GDPR and data protection laws do not apply because we have said so. You are required to break confidentiality agreements. We will not sign an NDA because we do not need to and we will not justify ourselves to you in any way shape or form.
We are the UK, and therefore, because we asked you to, you will comply with our every demand, whim and whimper. Otherwise we will continue to send strongly worded emails.
And fine you. And block you. Because that's the only thing we can do. And you best not advertise VPN's or we'll...Send another sternly worded email!
Good job UK!
(I cannot see how that paragraph is in any way legal, it must break the EU/UK's data protection laws in trying to compel disclosure of third party data. I cannot see any court in the UK ever upholding that paragraph if legally challenged as it's way above Ofcom's remit to be demanding confidential data. In any case, they should absolutely be required to sign NDA's)
IlikeKitties
I bought a 4chan pass today just to support the effort. If there's ever a hornets nest you don't want to fuck with it's 4chan and i can't imagine a better poking stick than ofcom.
4ggr0
the rasion d'etre of 4chan can probably be discussed forever, but i can't imagine donating money to such a vile, hate-filled platform. surely there are better causes fighting for the same things, right?
i know, freedom of speech, it's your money and not mine, etc.
tronicjester
Whose hate filled platform? Is there proof mods push general threads or curate content? If the "hate" is legit perspectives from the populous then its important. Reddit is highly curated and far more echoey than 4chan. Never seen pro-Jesus/Islam threads on main page of Reddit. 4chan has them all the time on multiple boards.
4ggr0
> Is there proof mods push general threads or curate content?
how does this relate to what i said? i get the "we're a free platform where everyone can do everything and no one is responsible for anything", just a cheap excuse from my POV considering the unhinged, doxxy culture on there. sure, there are cute boards, nice. i am talking about the inhumane, unhinged slurry of shit.
"Sure my neighbour has a couple of cadavres in his cellar, but have you seen the pretty flowers on his balcony?"
but per usual you can't criticize 4chan in the slightest without its warriors appearing to defend it. i get it. 4chan did and does cool stuff. it also does absolutely disgusting things, surprisingly this always gets dismissed as 'it's only the couple of rogue boards which are crazy'.
thomassmith65
'Hate!? on 4chan!? That's absurd!' /s
IlikeKitties
4chan isn't all /b/ and /pol/. /g/ the technology board can be a very interesting place. And its Members often create technology that absolutely suprises me. Just recently we started an effort to retake the usenet and are actively repopulating alt.cyberpunk.tech with genuine good discussions.
4ggr0
> 4chan isn't all /b/ and /pol/
maybe this is my bias, could very well be. maybe i should give it a 10th chance and browse the more useful boards.
i guess /g/ would be a start, do you have other recommendations? i mean i'm open to change my mind. for me 4chan stands for alt-right pipelines, spreading far-right ideology online etc., so i just really have a sour taste in my mouth when thinking about it.
janwl
One man’s hate is another man’s love.
oytis
It's fourth decade of WWW and the governments still haven't figured anything better than applying their sovereignty globally.
> The Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this expressly includes conducting investigations into, and imposing penalties for, non-compliance by providers of online services with their duties under the Act. […] The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect
I don't see anything wrong here: Sure, Ofcom can have the legal authority to regulate online safety worldwide. It's just that this... legal authority... isn't quite enforceable outside the UK jurisdiction. How unfortunate!