State Department confirms federal censorship shield law incoming(prestonbyrne.com)
prestonbyrne.com
State Department confirms federal censorship shield law incoming
https://prestonbyrne.com/2026/01/28/state-department-confirms-federal-granite-act-incoming/
27 comments
This is one of ClickHole's finest masterpieces.
America expects its citizens abroad to file taxes, and it strong-armed its allies banking systems into compliance nightmares to ensure extra-territorial enforcement of American laws.
If America wants to pressure countries over their extra-territorial enforcement of censorship laws it should repeal its taxation requirements of Americans not living in America.
If America wants to pressure countries over their extra-territorial enforcement of censorship laws it should repeal its taxation requirements of Americans not living in America.
That analogy would make sense if Ofcom was proposing to enforce UK rules only on UK citizens living in the US.
The main point is that America demands aggressive compliance with its laws from allies outside of US jurisdiction, and making a law that says other countries can make no demands of the US will frustrate the relationship between nations, especially during a time when America is seen as particularly aggressive, like placing heavy tariffs on its closest allies.
Is that the point? Seems to me that if US citizens abroad pay taxes, they should be entitled to US government protection from censorship.
GDPR is leveraged against companies for European citizens living in other countries.
I'm confused as to why the State Department would confirm Congress was going to introduce or pass legislation.
They're not exactly involved in the process.
They're not exactly involved in the process.
The legislation is part of a diplomatic conflict currently ongoing with the UK/EU (which is State’s domain). It would make sense for them to release a statement if they believe it could grant some kind of advantage in that conflict.
You probably thought congress would always be involved in lawmaking. But what enforced that?
"Precedent"?
"Precedent"?
I've read a decent amount about this topic and I still don't understand why a law is needed or what it would do. If you have no presence in the UK they can fine you, you can simply not pay the fine, and you have to remember to never travel to the UK so they don't arrest you. It's not clear that a US law could somehow prevent the UK from fining you.
It is simply posturing.
The claim that this UK action is an attack on the US First Amendment is absurd. That amendment is merely a limitation on the powers of Congress, and is irrelevant to the powers of the UK.
The claim that this UK action is an attack on the US First Amendment is absurd. That amendment is merely a limitation on the powers of Congress, and is irrelevant to the powers of the UK.
[deleted]
If this goes on, we could end up with separate regional networks instead of a big internet. A bit like what is already going on in China.
This.
The logical response to non- compliance with your country's regulations is simply to block them. 4chan probably won't care, but that's what will keep the bigger players like X and Meta engaged in some way. They won't want to be cut off from the European market, and a precedent set that 'non-awful' governments are justified to block them.
Of course, all this a month after the US invaded another country to snatch their president and his wife to put them on trial for US "crimes" they supposedly committed while not in the US and while not being Americans abroad. I wonder if the murdering of ~100 people in that operation is a crime there that those on the US would be expected to answer for \s. It's all so stupidly rich.
The logical response to non- compliance with your country's regulations is simply to block them. 4chan probably won't care, but that's what will keep the bigger players like X and Meta engaged in some way. They won't want to be cut off from the European market, and a precedent set that 'non-awful' governments are justified to block them.
Of course, all this a month after the US invaded another country to snatch their president and his wife to put them on trial for US "crimes" they supposedly committed while not in the US and while not being Americans abroad. I wonder if the murdering of ~100 people in that operation is a crime there that those on the US would be expected to answer for \s. It's all so stupidly rich.
[deleted]
What in the sovereignty?
Oh yeah now its behind a paywall 7.99$
(Satire but on a serious note, there are so many wtf moments happening right now where one gets concerned where the world is headed at this point from UK,US and many other countries having these dystopian actions from what I can tell)
(Satire but on a serious note, there are so many wtf moments happening right now where one gets concerned where the world is headed at this point from UK,US and many other countries having these dystopian actions from what I can tell)
> Ofcom’s censorship of Americans in America
Really? Where and when?
Really? Where and when?
I believe they're talking about 4Chan. There's a timeline linked in the article, but tldr this Ofcom (isp I guess?) has been trying to force 4chan to use age verification on all visitors in compliance with UK law, even though 4chan is based in the US.
> 12/4/2025: Ofcom writes to 4chan again, claiming it is “expanding its investigation” into the site for not age-verifying its users. Ofcom explains that although it is “a UK-based regulator… that does not mean the rules do not apply to sites based abroad.”
Edit: after reading through the legal correspondences, it looks like Ofcom has been trying to get 4chan to produce cooperate with its investigation into whether or not it complies with the UK's Online Safety Act. 4chan didn't respond to the first two inquiries from Ofcom, so Ofcom has been attempting to fine them according to the Act.
https://prestonbyrne.com/2025/10/16/the-ofcom-files/
> 12/4/2025: Ofcom writes to 4chan again, claiming it is “expanding its investigation” into the site for not age-verifying its users. Ofcom explains that although it is “a UK-based regulator… that does not mean the rules do not apply to sites based abroad.”
Edit: after reading through the legal correspondences, it looks like Ofcom has been trying to get 4chan to produce cooperate with its investigation into whether or not it complies with the UK's Online Safety Act. 4chan didn't respond to the first two inquiries from Ofcom, so Ofcom has been attempting to fine them according to the Act.
https://prestonbyrne.com/2025/10/16/the-ofcom-files/
> Ofcom (isp I guess?) has been trying to force 4chan to use age verification on all visitors in compliance with UK law,
All? I think not.
"The Act only requires that services take action to protect users in the UK - it does not require them to protect users anywhere else in the world. The measures that Ofcom recommends providers take to comply with their duties only relate to the design or operation of the service in the UK or as it affects UK users."
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...
All? I think not.
"The Act only requires that services take action to protect users in the UK - it does not require them to protect users anywhere else in the world. The measures that Ofcom recommends providers take to comply with their duties only relate to the design or operation of the service in the UK or as it affects UK users."
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...
You are taking ofcom's statements at face value and assuming them to be accurate, rather than blatant lies and spin. And even to the extent that that statement were true, it's still overreach to claim any ability to regulate companies outside their jurisdiction. It is not the responsibility of people outside their jurisdiction to help them oppress their citizens; it's just more politically safe to attempt extraterritorial enforcement than it is to put up a country-wide firewall.
> You are taking ofcom's statements at face value and assuming them to be accurate, rather than blatant lies and spin.
No I am not. I've verified those statements against the Online Safety Act itself.
Please feel free to substantiate your suggestion they are "blatant lies and spin".
No I am not. I've verified those statements against the Online Safety Act itself.
Please feel free to substantiate your suggestion they are "blatant lies and spin".
Ofcom's claimed aims are simultaneously overreaching even in what they claim to want, and inconsistent with their actual enforcement actions which in some cases seem intentionally unsatisfiable by any means other than "stop existing online". Empirically, their attempts at enforcement on non-UK entities, which should not even be able to go as far as "block UK users" (not a responsibility of a non-UK entity), don't stop with "block UK users", and also attempt to enforce "don't suggest VPNs" and "block VPNs", which are not aspects inherently associated with UK users specifically as opposed to any other country.
And all that is leaving aside that the claimed aims of "protecting UK users" are confirmed false, in legal filings: https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy2...
And all that is leaving aside that the claimed aims of "protecting UK users" are confirmed false, in legal filings: https://bsky.app/profile/tupped.bsky.social/post/3lwgcmswmy2...
> their actual enforcement actions which in some cases seem intentionally unsatisfiable by any means other than "stop existing online"
OK, so you are disputing Ofcom's: "The measures that Ofcom recommends providers take to comply with their duties only relate to the design or operation of the service in the UK or as it affects UK users".
Feel free to show even one Ofcom demand that goes beyond service to UK users only.
OK, so you are disputing Ofcom's: "The measures that Ofcom recommends providers take to comply with their duties only relate to the design or operation of the service in the UK or as it affects UK users".
Feel free to show even one Ofcom demand that goes beyond service to UK users only.
> VPNs ... can enable people to access online services in a way ... they do not benefit from protections required by the Online Safety Act
They sound like abusive partners of the "you're confused, I'm doing this for your own good" variety. It must have taken real discipline, resisting the urge to add an "or else" somewhere, perhaps a few iterations of "I'm going to marry you someday, Lorraine!"
They sound like abusive partners of the "you're confused, I'm doing this for your own good" variety. It must have taken real discipline, resisting the urge to add an "or else" somewhere, perhaps a few iterations of "I'm going to marry you someday, Lorraine!"
As is often the case, important defense mechanisms feel awful when they arise in the course of the worst people defending the worst people. They're still important defense mechanisms, and the UK's badly misnamed "Online Safety Act" (which will make people less safe) needs to die and never come back. But still, ugh.