4chan and Kiwi Farms Sue the UK Over its Age Verification Law
4chan and Kiwi Farms Sue the UK Over its Age Verification Law
cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/36419565
Literally the worst possible champions of this cause.
First they came for my tendies…
Sir this is a Wednesday's
Who cares? Nobody else is fighting this crap.
Now 4chan becomes the face of resistance to this shit, and people will think it is only being opposed by a bunch of deplorable incels. It delegitimizes the entire opposition - you can't speak out against it any more without being associated with 4chan and whatever the fuck kiwi farm is.
At least that's the risk, and that's why I wish these sites would go die in a hole rather than involve themselves with things I care about.
Wikipedia also sued but lost
They come for the things nobody would be caught dead defending (often even people who privately engage in it) first. Look at how during the thing with payment processors and porn games, some people were saying they didn't mind if it were just the rape games being banned. Those are used as justification for speech restrictions to the public.
(I don't even think KiwiFarms should be legal personally, Chris Chan's story should be considered evidence enough that they're a harassment forum)
I'm just saying like I oppose the death penalty, but there are certain cases where I'm not going to die on that particular hill. I don't believe they should be killed, but the context of the moment is going to alienate more people than it convinces.
Same thing here. I oppose identification laws but making that argument in defense of those two is going to make folks think it's a fanatical position rather than a reasonable one.
It's far better to argue from a reasonable position and then extend that to other cases than just argue these places should be allowed to continue to weaponize anonymity.
Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.
slightly better (less bad?) champions of the cause are stuck in electoralism.
Where's that worst person you know makes a good point headline when you need it
Thanks for pointing this out. Where IS the 'Worst person you know makes a good point'-reference? Well, more like 'The scum of the scum of the scum scum has a good point'...
Is there some way they could both lose?
Uk loses the case, both Kiwi and 4chan go into debt from legal fees? (They're definitely not making bank)
Kiwi farms? You mean the website that harrasses people online, Swats people, and basically does shit that is illegal in the UK anyway?
Next you'll tell me child porn sites are suing the UK. Fuck the Online Safety Act, but yeah, they're not the people who should be suing the UK over this.
they drove emulator developer Near/Byuu to suicide. That's someone who created BSNES / Higan (the first fully-accurate snes emulator), and helped with the fan translations for many games including mother 3.
Exactly, they have killed people, these motherfuckers don't give a shit about free speech or shit, they just don't want to face consequences for driving people to suicide.
I have no idea how precedence works in the UK. If they lose, is that a huge issue, or could a more legitimate service sue oater and realistically win if the verdict hinges on Kiwifarms being Kiwifarms?
OK so basically if they lose, the law will just stay in place. There is an example of a (less controversial and) more major site going to court against the OSA and losing.
The Wikimedia Foundation recently lost a case against Ofcom placing them in the highest level of regulation based on how many people from the UK visit Wikipedia. Basically Wikipedia tried to argue that the following:
The court basically ruled on the side of Ofcom (the UK's version of the FCC who were arguing against Wikipedia) but said to Ofcom that they should consider exceptions for Wikipedia considering their position as the Prime Encyclopedia on the internet. Whether OfCom will take that on board is a whole other thing.
I also don't see how they could win because what they could say "If you cannot comply, Geoblock", and on top of that I think Kiwifarms or 4chan, the former hosting members who tried to commit offenses under the terrorist act against a Northern Irish Streamer, or 4chan, a site that is the source for a lot of far right ideologies that lead to terror attacks, would get a fair hearing over this. Like this is a bit like if a far left group tried to fight KOSA in the US. If Kiwifarms and 4chan win this it would be both a major shock to the system and basically the government pinning their colours to the post in favour of the far right while stopping things like tweets about palestine or access to educational resources on sensitive subjects.
Also, the main argument put forward to pass the OSA was basically target sites like 4chan and Kiwifarms (even though we know now it doesn't just target those sites, but also all social media, blogs, search engines...). The bill does cover...
All of which are things 4chan and Kiwifarms are notorious for. So basically it's like if the KKK challenges the UK government against the Terrorist act because it covers them.
However the question they are putting forward is that "Since we're not in the UK, we should not be beholden to UK laws", which is a little bit of a problem because, say, if someone from the Netherlands accesses a childporn site hosted in Canada, it doesn't matter if someone in the Netherlands is not beholden to the laws of Canada, they can still be arrested for kiddyporn. Just because you are in one country and you are using a service in another doesn't mean you can't be arrested.
The OSA puts all the onus on instituting the law on the service provider, which I'm not sure if that is due to absolute arrogance of how the internet works (people in the Lords didn't even know what a VPN was) or something more Machiavellian (forcing medium to small sites to give money to companies MPs and Lords and their allies have invested in).
I think the ruling would be something like "no, it still applies, we wrote it specifially for sites like you, you can either age-gate or Geoblock the UK, your move."
But yeah, the OSA is a stupid fucking law that doesn't work in any sense and is being used to censor everything from Wikipedia to fucking shitposters in the name of the children. Any law that requires fining people in other jurisdictions isn't going to fucking work.
I have no idea how precedence works in the UK.
So what you need to understand about the UK is that Parliament is Sovereign. We don't have a balance of power like with the US with the President, Courts and Congress.
Our version of 1776 was 1649, when England beheaded Charles the First. After the restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the line was that Parliament called all the shots, not the Monarch, Prime Minister or the Courts. It's why the 13 colonies were all "no taxation without representation", because they knew this.
Anyway, The Supreme Court of the UK can strike down a law if it goes against another law. For example, during Brexit, Brexiteers argued that the Referendum alone meant that the UK can just leave the UK, but because the UK joined the EU through an act of parliament, they had to go through parliament. This led to a major newspaper calling judges "Enemies of the People" for (checks notes) following the law, but my point still stands.
Do I think KiwiChan/4Farms can overturn or make an exception to the law? No, especially since they are literally the boogiemen the government hold up as the reason for the law. What I do think will happen is that they will be told "comply, geoblock the UK or we'll block you". Ofcom blocking a site that isn't a CSAM would defo be a step in the wrong direction and a dangerous president, but I also suspect 4chan and Kiwifarms would do something like promote VPNs or something, but they don't need to do that because VPN use is sky high right now.
tl;dr: The OSA doesn't break any other law afaik, and this law was basically designed to target places like 4chan and KiwiFarms. They're not going to win this, Even Wikipedia didn't win their case, and the courts are just going to say something like "Age-gate, Geoblock, or GTFO".
My assumption is if they win it would be a snowball effect of other such non-uk based sites suing for non compliance to UK regulation. This wouldn't be of great use for sites that operate in the UK as well as other countries and target UK demographic in a commercial manner.
Hey 4Chan was a big reason behind no one taking Scientology seriously anymore
While Project Chanology has roots to 4chan, it was more of a collaborative effort between various other "chan" boards, the SomethingAwful forums, and various other pre-reddit forums, under the Anonymous banner. Also, about a few months into those protests, a lot of the 4chan kids specifically thought it was becoming cringe and bounced.
Oh no, they might dox the PM, call him a lolcow, and SWAT 10 Downing.
I never expected to be cheering for 4-Chan and kiwi farms but it’s 2025 and nothing makes sense anymore.
The enemy of your enemy is your enemy's enemy. No more, no less.
But it's still fun to shake the jar and watch 'em fight!
Same here.
2003: If our privacy and freedoms on the internet are ever in peril, don't worry, there will be an uprising and our governments and tech corporations will come to our defense.
2025: i did NOT have 4chan will come to our aide on my bingo card....
Even earlier than 2003.
Both earlier and later, i'm personally more interested to gather the transition date between when someone thought we'd take care of it and the realization that noone was going to take care of it.
nazi porn-enjoyers vs nazi government ultimate showdown
if kiwi farms was a person I would bully the crap out of it until it shit it's pants and then I'd lock it in a closet with its shitpants
If kiwi farms was a person, I'd throw them off a bridge and shit on their broken corpse
Wow.
You must be a fan, to be so light and kind about it.
So 4chan that said they wouldn't pay the UK fine as the UK doesn't have jurisdiction over companies based in the USA is going to sue UK over stuff that 4chan can't be responsible for?
4chan will sue the UK trying to hold them responsible for UK law, in US court. Foreign judgement limiting freedom of speech. Seems to be in line with their strategy of not being an UK company so not paying fines: "Your laws don't apply to us. Hell, they aren't even constitutional!".
Do you think the UK government even considered that? Do you think the Tories, who passed this law, or labour, who are full-throatedly supporting this law, even considered this?
They didn't even consider vpns. We literally have a member of the House of lords talking about VPNs as if they were some obscure technology. She literally said "Have your heard of VPN", one referring to it as if it was some sort of singular service.
It’s more than that. They argue that the whole network that we call the Internet was invented and is currently maintained by America (and they are not wrong), that other nations failed to invent and deploy competitive solutions and UK trying to enforce some rulings on an American network is absurd.
Who is even running 4chan nowadays?
I heard it was a hacker named 4chan.
did hacker go by this name prior to successfully taking over 4chan? that's the question
I assume the FBI or CIA
Its a recruitment portal, basically.
Last I heard 4chan-ers were referring to the owner as "Jap-moot"
Hiroyuki Nishimura, founder of 2channel and current owner of 2ch.sc
Wait until they sue Mississippi
The nihilist school shooters of the world are way more litigious than I thought possible.
The complaint is hilarious. So on brand.
I guess they'll win. It's going to be interesting to see what happens then.
If the world goes to shit but Kiwi Farms is destroyed, I will have a moticum of warmth in my blood.
Fuck the censorship but a non-US government should not be tried in a US court.
By that logic "non-US laws shouldn't affect US establishments". Have you even thought that through before typing it?
Yes, you probably haven't. If an entity or person does not have a presence in a country it should not be subject to those laws. Their home country should reject enforcing any penalties or extraditing their citizen. Of course the US is the most notorious and more successful in getting people that never had any meaningful relation to the US extradited.
I also don't think the UK or an EU nation's court should be able to try a case against a US government agency, say the FDA because they do not follow the same standards. Or even against ICE agents because they abduct people.
Democratic countries should be able to have their own laws even if larger countries disagree with them.
Do you seriously think 4chan is in danger of having the fines collected? They are just right wingers trying to spur the US government into blackmailing the UK into changing their laws to align with US sensibilities and 'values'. Fuck that.
I don’t really get this.
Whether I like the UK’s act, they are free to set the laws of their land. So if foreign websites don’t want to comply, the UK is also free to order its ISPs to block the site.
Which kids will then circumvent with VPN.
And so on …
Whether I like the UK’s act, they are free to set the laws of their land. So if foreign websites don’t want to comply, the UK is also free to order its ISPs to block the site.
Yes, and 4chan is an asshole, if you want to do business in a country you need to respect the country's laws even if your company in not in that country.
What 4chan can do (and it is the only thing) is to block people from UK. Or find a way to convince a UK court that the law is unconstitutional (or the UK equivalent) but I would not bet on this.
Yes despite my downvotes I’ll stick my neck out to agree with you.
If a US company wanted to sell liquor online in the UK, they’d have to follow U.K. laws for alcohol licensing and age-verified delivery.
I don’t know why age verification is any different. That’s the UK law (which I disagree with for what it’s worth, certainly in its current implementation) and if you want to operate in the UK (and for a website that means be accessible to U.K. audiences) you follow U.K. laws while here.
They don't just block it, they try to fine the companies first, legal smothering.
Passing laws like this disproportionately affects smaller websites that are independent from big tech. A law like this HAD to come from big tech, where tech bros are exchanging money with the government for total wrangling and control of every step of their users / citizens.
As an analogy, currently in some countries tobacco and vape products can only be sold in certain stores in a certain way, hidden behind a counter, think tobacco stores, corner stores, gas stations or mom&pop depanneurs. Suddenly some government official receives bribes (through lobbying or otherwise) from a cartel of big-box stores and security-service providers that prompts them to propose a bill to mandate a security guard at every small store to act as a bouncer against letting children into the store. As a small business owner not only does this require you to hire a security guard and pay their salary + the overhead going towards big-sec, you are also losing revenue from potential customers (children) that would come into your store to buy chips, pop, ice cream or bag of milk (yes, bag). And I didn't even get to the analogy of control aspect yet, just that of the smb.
It's a stupid law and for a stupid reason (FOR THE CHILDREN!!) and I hope more, serious businesses pile on such a lawsuit and hopefully kneecaps anyone ever thinking about implementing such an idiocy. I'm looking at you Steam, GOG, Epic, etc.
Edit: to go further on the control side of the analogy, the security guard has to ask for the ID of every person wishing to enter the store, jot it down in their logbook and submit the logbook to their parent company hourly. The big-sec parent company now has this data for sale to anyone willing to offer. Including the government, who can then enact further control on their citizens based on the data obtained on their habits.
From what I've read about this lawsuit is that the UK isn't blocking the site, they are sending them daily fines for not IDing every user. The 2 sites are arguing back that they aren't UK companies and don't even have any business/physical presence in the UK, so as they have nothing to do with anything of the UK then UK laws and legal threats have no meaning to them. Which I agree with here.
I think they are seeking legal lawsuits like this to help prevent any future issues (like having arrest warrants issued for them in the UK, preventing them from ever being there, or the risk of other countries arresting them and shipping them to the UK to face the fines/charges).
Their lawsuit will fail for the simple reason they only have to age verify UK citizens, not everyone. But it does go to show how stupid this law actually is. If the UK wanted to block 4chan (for example) to under 18s, then ISPs should provide optional filtering software with every account that can be enabled per device to do it. It would be far more effective than expecting websites around the world to police the UK's own laws.