The response from Ofcom doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.<p>If you are to <i>sell</i> a toy <i>in</i> the UK you must be a British company. (and must pay VAT and comply with British safety standards).<p>If a consumer buys from overseas and imports a product then they do not have British consumer protections. Which is why so much aliexpress electrical stuff is dangerous (expecially USB chargers) yet it continues to be legally imported.<p>Just, no british retailer would be allowed to carry it without getting a fine.
That’s not really true. The Ofcom representative said “not allowed” not “unable to”. Even If cocaine is legal in my country, I’m not allowed to sell it to British consumers by the power of the British authorities. The British authorities may not have legal authority in my jurisdiction but they can take action in their own, including issuing penalties and stopping my deliveries at the border.
You have to pay import VAT for goods valued £135 or less and comply with British safety standards and consumer protections even if you sell to UK customers from overseas.<p>In that case the UK customer is the importer but Aliexpress (in part) and seller would still be liable and UK would assert jurisdiction because they would say Aliexpress targets UK customers with website in English and by offering shipping to UK.<p>What you are describing is a situation where the UK person imports something from let's say Taobao on their own and they arrange shipping on their own, which is different.
The US CBP routinely intercepts "dangerous" products. I assume the Brits have the same.<p>It's a wonder why AliExpress flies under the radar. I assume it's impossible to keep up with it all.<p>The UK's comically over-engineered electrics are no match for some of these plug-in-and-die sketchy USB chargers from the Far East.<p>DiodesGoneWild on YouTube does teardowns of many of these incredibly poorly constructed deathtraps.
Commenting on Europe has gotten really lax the last year or so. People kinda will just say whatever pops into their head and it’s some drive-by claim that they haven’t thought about for a second past it popping into their head, presumably because it’s become normalized. (i.e. “but everyone knows Europe goes too far”)<p>Sometimes it self resolves - as you contributed here, yes, countries limit and interfere and fine other countries businesses, all the time!<p>I don’t know what yours means though. What electrics are made in the UK? How are they over engineered?
Is it correct to say the consumer is importing a product when it's aliexpress shipping it to them?
Particularly if AliExpress is paying local VAT and import taxes (or at least dealing with the import paperwork) or even less if it’s from one of their local (UK/EU etc) warehouses
Of course. What situation are you imagining where a country imports a product without the seller shipping the product to that country?
Unless AliExpress has a local entity, like they do in some countries, yes.
yes, aliexpress would not be shipping it if the consumer did not order it.
><i>However, a lawyer representing the company - which has previously said it won't pay such fines - has responded to the demand with an AI-generated cartoon image of a hamster.</i><p>><i>The latest image is not the first picture of a hamster lawyers for 4chan have sent in reply to Ofcom</i><p>amazing. same energy as the pirate bay telling dreamworks to sodomize themselves. i cant help but laugh at the absurdness of it.
If it wasn't for 4Chan, we might never have solved the Haruhi problem<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpermutation#Lower_bounds,_or_the_Haruhi_problem" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpermutation#Lower_bounds,...</a><p>I used to go on a curated version of 4Chan via Telegram. Yes there is a lot of racism (although it flies in every direction, between every ethnicity you could imagine) but there is also (due to the anonymous nature) some genuinely interesting discussions. I remember one thread about aircraft carriers being of no use being debated by US and UK submarine officers.<p>There are also some genuinely funny bits. There was a guy in Greece who had found out that as long as he never graduated, he could live a basic life for free at university. His nickname was Dormogenes.
there is a great clickhole headline that your comment reminds me of<p><i>"Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made a Great Point"</i><p>4chan has produced some hilarious/interesting stuff, and they have also driven people to suicide. i suppose it is up to everyone individually to make the value judgement there.
> "Companies – wherever they're based – are not allowed to sell unsafe toys to children in the UK. And society has long protected youngsters from things like alcohol, smoking and gambling. The digital world should be no different," she said.<p>So the UK plans to fine Parisian bars that serve alcohol to British under-18s in France on holiday?
This is more like the UK fining Parisian bars that <i>courier</i> alcohol to under-18s <i>in the UK</i>.
More like the UK fining US porn publishers for not stopping British kids searching through the hedges in their street
It’s a lot more like banning the importation of books and newspapers that the government doesn’t agree with…
Which is equally absurd.
In theory the children are committing a crime yes, but obviously enforcement is extremely low; left mainly to their teachers.<p>I don't think UK law governs foreign companies' overseas operations based on the nationality of the customer though, no.
They’re not breaking any law.<p>Laws apply to actions in the country, they’re not based on citizenship.<p>If you go to Amsterdam and sleep with a hooker, you didn’t break a law by doing that: despite prostitution (specifically <i>purchasing</i> sex) being illegal in many western countries.
That’s not always true, and increasingly less so, particularly the Australians and the crime of child sex tourism. I am sure it’ll be expanded to hate crimes and disturbing the peace laws as well and from there used as a political cudgel to suppress opposition to government policies. At least for now you have to be a citizen of the country but the UK has stated an intention to extradite US citizens for online hate crimes.
Countries do have laws that apply even when you leave the country. For example, Americans living abroad still have to pay taxes.
afaik, prostitution is either legal or partially legal on the majority of Western countries.<p><a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-where-prostitution-is-legal" rel="nofollow">https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...</a>
France can fine Parisian bars that serve alcohol to under-18s itself.
It would be marvelous if they used a drawing of a spider.<p><a href="https://27bslash6.com/overdue.html" rel="nofollow">https://27bslash6.com/overdue.html</a>
Let kids go to 4chan. I frequented it and turned out fine.
I used to hang out there too. However, describing me as 'fine' would require a lengthy debate over definitions.
The problem is you're getting downvoted by the people who didn't.
This is all just theatre to justify a ban right?
Meanwhile Google.com shows all manner of depravity if you click “safe search: off”.<p>I realize there’s a carve out in the legislation for search engines but if the goal is to stop little Timmy finding pictures of an X being Yd up the Z then it is a resolute failure.<p>The only thing that works with children is transparency and accountability, be that the school firewall or a ban on screen use in secret.<p><i>”screens where I can see ‘em!”</i>
> Last month Pornhub restricted access to its website in the UK, blaming the introduction of stricter age checks, and said its traffic had fallen by 77%.<p>assumedly the rate of consumption hasn't dramatically changed, so the OSA's immediate result has been either the decentralisation of porn providers (towards those small enough to dodge the law for now and be less exacting) or the mass adoption of proxies; I assume the former is the path of least resistance<p>this is notably the opposite of the feared outcome (which I suspect may be closer to the long-term effect) that the bar to meet the requirements would be so high (possibly involving hiring a lawyer) that smaller social/porn sites get regulated out of existence (see ie. <a href="https://lobste.rs/s/ukosa1/uk_users_lobsters_needs_your_help_with" rel="nofollow">https://lobste.rs/s/ukosa1/uk_users_lobsters_needs_your_help...</a>)
It does seem like if the UK wants to do content filtration (blocking noncompliant websites) they will need to own up to it and set up a China-style firewall, rather than hoping they can badger the service providers into doing it for them.
Yes, this is part of the consent manufacturing process.
That's the plan. But if they do it right away people will revolt.
People used to tell kids to not go to a shady part of town while they spent their afternoons outside unsupervised. Can parents not tell kids to not go to certain websites? We still went to the shady part of town and the kids will still go to 4chan but at least we don't need to give away freedoms. Such erosion of freedom for the common person because parents can't have an awkward conversation is irritating.
I'm moving away from that line of thinking. We can discuss how poorly formulated this law is, and the implications for privacy of internet control bills, and the resulting eroding of our freedom of speech. It's correct to be suspicous of attempts to regulate the internet. But I'm becoming increasingly convinced that "for the sake of the children" such measures are necessary. The reality is that most kids these days have basically zero restrictions on internet exposure, and it's frying their brains[1]. Casual warnings from parents won't cut it. Not that they don't have the ultimate responsibility, but as in every other area of child rearing, they need help from the wider society they live in.<p>[1] I'm not going to quote studies, but plenty exist. I think it's pretty self evident to everyone here how bad internet can be for the mental health even of adults, let alone children with developing minds.
Do you have children?
I do. I also grew up on 4chan because I didn’t have an involved parent, and I lived in the suburbs where finding friends to just “go outside and play” wasn’t an option. Consuming that content was genuinely hurtful and probably forever altered my psyche. I have the means and knowledge, in technical skill and life experience, to know how these things work, and protect my kids from that. Most people don’t.
Raising children is hard but assuming everyone has to sacrifice their rights so your job is easier means everyone means everyone loses long term.
Or this should be done at point of sale, like we do with all controlled substances.<p>We don't sell bottles containing alcohol and then expect to filter the alcohol out if the child wants to drink from it. We have two different bottles: alcoholic bottles and non-alcoholic bottles. If you are a child, you cannot purchase the former.<p>Stop selling unrestricted computing devices to children. Require a person to be 18+ to purchase an unrestricted internet device. Make it clear that unrestricted internet access, like alcohol and nicotine (and the list goes on) is harmful to children. That resolves 90% of the problem.<p>And lets be fair, the problem isn't the children. Children want what all their peers have. The problem isn't their peers. The problem is the parents. Give the spineless parents a simpler way to say no to their children, and the overall problem goes away.
There's always people that say it's the parents responsibility to monitor their kids. But as a parent, you either give your kids full access to the internet or nothing. The fault lies with the OS companies Google, Microsoft, Apple. They do a terrible job with parental controls. They make it very hard to setup, they're confusing and hard to use plus they barely work. I think they just do it as a checkbox for marketing or regulatory purposes. That's where I'd like to see regulation.
OS makers should not be in the business of enforcing censorship. If you want to shield your children from the "horrors" of the internet either use proper parental control software, or don't allow access at all like you said until your kids are mature to understand what's going on<p>The onus is on the parent to the be parent. Not the tech industry, and especially not the government.
<i>a lawyer representing the company - which has previously said it won't pay such fines - has responded to the demand with an AI-generated cartoon image of a hamster.</i>
"As they should"
The unpaywalled version on AOL
<a href="https://www.aol.com/articles/us-messageboard-4chan-mocks-520-115418836.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.aol.com/articles/us-messageboard-4chan-mocks-520...</a>
[dead]
You mean the message board that collab-ed with Epstein? Delete them from the internet.