the “trucks” in your example are the users computers/phones.

No it’s the packets being sent from the 4chan server.

Stopping every single packet (or in the real world truck) to check it isn’t feasible, do that and you get 20 mile queues up the m20 (and the digital version of that). Plus any government trying to so it like that would get accused of tax payers money due to the insane amount of resources that would be needed.

Placing the responsibility on the company makes sense, so does issuing penalties for non compliance. The company that has a fine issued against them can of course ignore it if they’re set up outside the country that issues the fine. But they should then expect the country issuing the fine to escalate. If they don’t pay and don’t comply they can expect to have any assets in the uk seized and eventually get blocked from operating entirely. And probably have any executives arrested of they enter the country. Ofcom can’t just jump to getting a court order though because they need to be fair and give 4chan a chance to comply if they want to.

The problem with the online safety act is that it exists at all, and that they expect people to use third party authentication services many of which are operating from countries with poor data protection regulations. That said, as iit does exist the logic of saying that companies are the ones responsible for what people access from their servers does make sense.

now, some enterprising individuals have taken it upon themselves to buy, smuggle, and then sell those beverages inside the UK

Wouldn’t it be more akin to those individuals putting the alcohol into 4chan’s trucks that are taking other stuff to the UK? (and worse with 4chan’s knowledge)

In that case do you think it’s unreasonable that the uk government imposes penalties for 4chan refusing to remove the alcohol that they know is there from the trucks.

And then if 4chan then refuses to pay said penalties start to not allow them to bring any trucks into the uk at all?

It’s a process. They need to issue the fine first to give them a chance to pay rather than jumping to blocking it. If they continue to refuse to pay that’s where it’ll go.

Trump is all over the place on this war, it’s kind of impossible to keep track of his position on it.

About 1.5% of Musk’s net worth when it was at it’s height when he was US President.

Also it’s much easier to triple a small number than a big one.

Yeah. That makes sense. But given the extract of the article says the uk didn’t take it seriously makes it seem that this “discussion” probably amounted to a proposal by openAI the uk asking how much, and then openAI giving a price. With no further discussion after that.

Those close to the discussion say Kyle never really took the idea seriously, not least because it could have cost as much as £2bn

It’s a non story. Sounds like someone from openai proposed it in a more broad conversation, the minister asked how much and that was it.

Nice steady revenue stream. I don’t think they’re profitable so are clearly looking for more money.

Those close to the discussion say Kyle never really took the idea seriously, not least because it could have cost as much as £2bn

Discussion

OpenAI: We could give everyone in the UK premium access for 2 billion a year.

Minister: Lol fuck off.

end discussion

Media

Look how the government is discussing wasting money on this they’ll do cuts and raise taxes.

Ah ok. That makes sense where it came from then.

I think there was a lot of speculation and jokes about that’s what would happen next from people on here and other places.

They’ve said nothing of the sort.

With regards to this most people are just ignoring the law. VPN use has gone through the roof.

The wording on ofcom is “should not” not" must not". It’s not illegal, they just don’t want people to do it and want people to think that it is illegal.

your neighbour, your cousin, or even your own wife!

Don’t forget your nan or granddad!

Jacob Ecclestone, 86, said: “I believe in freedom of speech. What this government is trying to do is deeply authoritarian. And it’s extremely dangerous.”

Thanks. Outside of the top line maniacs I’m not really aware of any of the other names in the American government.

Who?

They need to do something to improve their communication. But this. Really?

As I understand it if a site doesn’t comply and fineing them isn’t an option Ofcom can apply for a court order to, indeed, compell ISPs to block them.