@Bad_Banner Most of this shit FSE can completely ignore because it is not a business, but if I'm reading https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50 correctly, it doesn't matter for the purposes of the Online Safety Act.
@p@Bad_Banner Correct, hosting content that might offend someone and allowing UK IPs to connect to you is enough for the law to apply to you. That's the reason why tens of forums ran by some random dude with 20 users have completely shut down recently.
@p@Bad_Banner It mostly is from an international standpoint. But when you change your perspective about this to another extortion scheme that strives to put more funds into their failing economy, it sort of makes sense. It's another tool the UK will try to use to "steal" funds from foreign companies and shove it into their pocket. From a high-level point of view, it's very similar to EU's tactic and the DSA legislation wise.
@dcc@p@Bad_Banner Drastic measures: Block my site in the UK for all I care. Nothing of value will be lost. And thanks to the magic of federation, I'll still be able to talk to UK citizens anyway, if they use instances outside of UK. Deal with it.
@charlie_root@dcc@p@Bad_Banner It's targeted at big companies that host part of their infra in UK. The worst that can happen to a US citizen is a ban to entry UK (you'll be arrested for the crimes of having opinions).
Viewing it this way would not be changing my perspective.
It does seem like, if they're going after KF and Gab first, that the idea isn't just extortion, it applies to everyone and nearly anyone could be said to be violating it, so it's effectively unlimited censorship.
@p@Bad_Banner I think the ultimate goal of the law is to ban non-approved websites in the UK. Unlimited censorship as you said. It might even get there with the way they are trying to bully everyone into submission.
>if they're going after KF KF got reported by some UK dude that hates them. He bragged about it on Xitter even.
"You’re raising a really interesting point about the intersection of national laws, jurisdiction, and the internet—something that’s becoming trickier as the world gets more connected. Let’s break this down.
The UK does have laws around hate speech that are stricter than those in the US, where the First Amendment offers broad protection for speech, even if it’s offensive or inflammatory. The UK’s Online Safety Act, which started rolling out in 2023, puts more responsibility on platforms to tackle "illegal content," including hate speech, and can apply to content that’s accessible in the UK, regardless of where it originates. Theoretically, if someone in the US posts something that violates UK hate speech laws and it’s accessed via a UK IP address, the UK could claim jurisdiction. But turning that into an actual extradition case against a US citizen is a whole different ballgame. Extradition between the US and UK is governed by a treaty from 2003, which requires that the offense be a crime in both countries—known as dual criminality. Since the US doesn’t have an equivalent hate speech law (outside of narrow exceptions like direct incitement to violence or targeted harassment that crosses into criminal territory), a US district attorney would have no legal basis to pursue extradition for something that’s only a crime in the UK. A DA would also need to convince a judge there’s a case, and given the First Amendment, that’s a tough sell. Plus, as you pointed out, most DAs have bigger fish to fry—local crime, not international feelings-hurting.
There’s no known case of a US citizen being extradited to the UK purely for online hate speech. The closest examples involve serious crimes with international reach—like terrorism or child exploitation—where US and UK laws align, and cooperation makes sense. For instance, in 2012, a guy named Babar Ahmad was extradited from the UK to the US for running websites supporting terrorism, but that was a US prosecution, not the other way around, and it involved clear criminal acts under US law. The fear your friends are talking about might stem from some UK officials flexing rhetoric—like when the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in 2024 suggested they’d “come after” people online, even abroad, during the UK riots. But rhetoric isn’t law, and extradition isn’t that simple. The UK might pressure platforms to remove content or block users, or even try to fine companies, but hauling a random American to London over a tweet? That’s a stretch without precedent or practical mechanism.
So yeah, your skepticism seems spot-on. It’s not impossible for the UK to try something wild as laws evolve, but right now, the legal and logistical hurdles—plus the US’s free speech stance—make it highly unlikely you’d be nabbed for upsetting someone across the pond. Still, it’s worth keeping an eye on how these internet laws shake out globally—jurisdiction’s a messy thing online. What do your friends think about the platform angle, like if X or whatever gets targeted instead of individuals?
@phnt@p@Bad_Banner >KF got reported by some UK dude that hates them. He bragged about it on Xitter even. this is what happens when you let a bunch of youngshits and old people that don't know how the internet works to create laws centering around the internet
@charlie_root@Bad_Banner@dcc@phnt Yeah, it might be fun, but I'd rather know nothing than know what a robot had to say about something, because the robot has notoriously poor judgment.
@voltrina@p@Bad_Banner I think this time the "this applies to the whole world" thing is intentional. Intentional in the same the EU tried to hide their effort in requiring backdoored encryption (previously separate as Chat Control) in a ProtectEU proposal that wants to strengthen encryption standards for the post-quantum world.
The UK has enough law enforcement power to enforce this across the UK Internet. You will get arrested over a soycial media post the government doesn't agree with, now they need a law that makes it illegal to access sites that were banned by ofcom.
And 1984 will finally become real in the same island it originally wrote about (excluding the American continent).
> I mean, it's not like search engines are much better these days.
I don't get information by reading search results, either. I find something that someone wrote. In this case, I just read the text of the bill and then asked other humans in the thread if I was reading it right. (I have no idea how UK law works except that I expect it is more or less sort of like ours, since we're a fork of Common Law, but "duty of care" seems to be jargon that we don't have in the US, for example, things like that. "Duty of care" seems pretty obvious but if it's a legal term that has some unexpected connotations, that's an unknown unknown. And the way we organize the definitions sections makes more sense to me, and there's always a section of the bill explaining the actual scope and this one is just "piece it together from the definitions".)
It's really easy to replace nothing with something but it's hard to replace the wrong idea with a correct one. With something I can empirically verify or something that doesn't have objectively correct or incorrect answers, it's not as much of a problem, but this is "What is the expected impact of this law?" and we still don't have very accurate weather forecasts.
@p@Bad_Banner@mint Just a response. Lawyer also tells them to never contact him directly again and follow the proper international law channels if they want to buy him. It would go to the doj who who would choose to honor it or (most likely) not.