While overall poverty rates have improved considerably in recent decades, several individual countries have experienced a rise in poverty. As previously mentioned, 696 million people still live in extreme poverty, surviving on less than $1.90 (INT) per day

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poverty-rate-by-country

He could just gift all of those people $1400 each which would keep them above the poverty line for two years and still have a shit load of money for himself.

Photography, Star trek, fountain pens

Name one

Ask it for many R’s there are in strawberry

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.

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

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.

how much effort they put on showing the world the consequences of extremely stupid acts so the rest don’t have to do it.

Kinda sucks to be the world’s policy alpha tester though.

You think given how well thought through this online safety act has been that they’ll understand that would be an issue and legislate accordingly?

How many small businesses can afford such permit? Hell, I’d argue that even bigger companies will have a problem paying for that.

Feature, not a bug.

They want people back in offices to help landlords and property prices. This way they can say that remote work is not banned and it’s just companies choosing not to buy a permit and offer it.

Oh that makes it easier for the government.

Maybe that the end goal, force people back into the office by banning vpn

Ban remote working, vpn now only allowed from business addresses as registered with companies house.

Next step: ban on remote work.

What I don’t get is why it’s ok to view that at 18 but not at 17 years and 364 days. Surely just ban the site for everyone.

For example, the Government is very concerned about small platforms that host harmful content, such as forums dedicated to encouraging suicide or self-harm.

So they’ve identified a problem with this type of content, and the answer is to put it behind an age wall. So is it a-ok for anyone over 18 to be encouraged to self harm or commit suicide according to the government?