What happened? Did they forget? Here's the links:https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/4chan-ban-uk-fine-online-safety-act-b2845043.htmlhttps://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/enforcement/2025/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/4chan/4chan-confirmation-decision-non-confidential.pdf?v=407997https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/online-safety/information-for-industry/illegal-harms/online-safety-enforcement-guidance.pdf?v=391925>inb4 they never said they would ban itWrong. Read section 9 of the Enforcement Guidance. It mentioned that if 4chan failed to pay the fine within 60 days, they would force business disruption measures.>what the fuck is a 'business disruption measures'?This section of the document explains a wide range of measures such as: forcing ISPs to block access, stopping payment processors, ad suppliers, 3rd party APIs, etc from doing business with you. Essentially state-enforced 'cancellation'.
>>524052443Oh shit, he's gonna go backwards now
>>524052443most forced meme in 4chan history
>>524052443The new captcha implemented a week ago was supposed to be bong-proof.You know what that means, VPN scum.
>>524052443Basically you're here illegally.
I thought that downtime a week or two ago had something to do with this.
>>524052443>>524052470>>524052497No, it was a viral advertising campaign to get more bongs on the website
if the mods/admins for shit n giggles simply deleted english flags and replaced them with random ones I bet the boomers trying to shut it down would call it a success since they don't even understand the internet beyond facebook tier normieslop
>>524052443I thought we'd have thread s like>-7 days>until 4chan is banned in the UKor >7 days>since 4chan has been banned in the UKBut this works too, I guess.My biggest regret since the OFCOM's deadline has passed is that I missed the yesterday's japveri thread.
>>524053730I kneel.
>>524052443oi av bin doin me maffs at skewel and not worryin about it none!
>>524052443Cute chudette
>>524052443They sent out the instructions to all ISPs to block 4chan access. It will take until January next year most likely.
>>524053730Blobless women should be banned.
>>524054036any good ideas on how to get brits onto hashchans? they dont need a dns record to operate and they'd need to stop ethereum to stop the posting
they cucked to superior 4cock
>>524054409Most Brits on here are probably the "what's a computer" type who talk about nothing in particular like the flavor their recently purchased marmite has or mr.Bean and BoJo having a lot in common etc. Bring up crypto and their mind goes blank as a protective measure. For them, the best altchan should be anthro.foo as it doesn't even have a captcha and UK has lion for it's national animal; moreover, another symbol of UK is... *robin*. Get it? No? Well it was stupid anyway.
This is a ginger snaps thread
A lot of things were supposed to happen.
>>524054870seems the strategy than would be to target male youth in financial/tech centers?I was hoping there was a guild or something in the city you could drop this in and things would move appropriately
>>524052443They literally can't ban 4chan without blocking cloudflare. Look at the mess spain causes when they block cloudflare during soccer matches.
>>524056573Bullshit. I'm pretty sure they can do whatever they want. Cloudflare doesn't require 4chan, but 4chan requires Cloudflare.
>>524052443>business disruption measures.In anglo-speak I believe this means writing a strongly worded letter, if even that.
>>524056678Actually no, they already explained what this means.>>what the fuck is a 'business disruption measures'?This section of the document explains a wide range of measures such as: forcing ISPs to block access, stopping payment processors, ad suppliers, 3rd party APIs, etc from doing business with you. Essentially state-enforced 'cancellation'.
>>524052443Britons don't have the bollocks. Fooking muppets.
>>524052443my guess is that Brits are trying to put pressure on the US so Trump censors the internet
>>524052443kill yourself worthless tranny
>>524056644>4chan requires CloudflareExactly my point.When you connect to 4chan, you don't connect to gookmoot's server in the US. You connect to a cloudflare server, which connects to gookmoot's US server. So they'd have to block cloudflare, just like spain does during soccer matches. Your shithole country can do a DNS block on 4chan.org, but that's easily bypassed.
>>524057248But the ban is going to happen one way or another.Whether it's a DNS block or a ISP block.
>>524057354My point is that if they do a ISP block, then they'll end up taking down quite a lot of the internet that relies on cloudflare.
>>524057608They will only block 4chan.They mentioned this in the Article.
>>524057642Are you fucking retarded? The other anon has explained it to you like three times now.
>>524057854No. I'm not retarded. You don't have a good way at communicating.Cloudflare does not need 4chan to function.They are not blocking Cloudflare.They want to block 4chan.I'm not really sure what your point is.
>>524057899The point is we will all be grateful when you bongs are finally cut off
>>524057899My point is that it's not possible to block 4chan without blocking cloudflare, which would block a huge amount of the internet, possibly including ofcom's own website.You don't seem to understand the actual technical details behind how the internet works.
>>524058463Now I just think you're trolling.Blocking 4chan doesn't mean Cloudflare will be banned. It means 4chan will be blocked.
>>524058541You understand so little about how the internet works, you must be a Liberal MP.https://www.sdxcentral.com/news/cloudflares-recent-outage-was-global-news-in-spain-it-happens-every-weekend/
>>524059172No. You're just trolling.Blocking 4chan doesn’t require blocking Cloudflare. ISPs use DNS, SNI, and hostname filtering — not IP-only blocks. Ofcom sets policy; ISPs implement it. Cloudflare doesn’t make sites unblockable, it just prevents blunt overblocking.
>>524056734>number of these things performed: 0wow terrifyinganyways
>>524059505I'm sure they are working on it.It will probably be implemented in January at the latest, if not sooner.
>>524053662>japveri thread.What?Whats that?
>>524059213>ISPs use DNS, SNI, and hostname filteringAll of this is trivially bypassed by setting your DNS to something outside the UK, like 1.1.1.1. If DNSSEC is enabled on that server, then your ISP literally can't know if you're connecting to 4chan. All they know is you sent a DNS request to a server, then connected to one of Cloudflare's servers.
>>524052443>stop ad suppliersHeavens no.
>>524059909You’re confusing “bypassable” with “unenforceable”, which is a classic strawman.Nobody claimed DNS filtering alone is perfect. The claim was — and still is — that blocking 4chan does not require blocking all of Cloudflare. That remains true.DNSSEC doesn’t magically make traffic invisible; it authenticates DNS responses, it doesn’t conceal destinations. And DNS is not the only signal ISPs use anyway — large-scale filtering relies on multiple layers and correlation, not a single 2005-era mechanism. Saying “ISPs literally can’t know” is simply false in real deployments.More importantly, regulatory blocking is about friction, not absolute secrecy. The existence of bypass methods does not invalidate enforcement — otherwise every content regulation on the internet would be pointless. That’s like arguing locks are useless because lockpicks exist.
>>524052443what that means is that 4chan paid their duesTOP KEK
>>524060030Lol, you literally had to get AI to write responses because you don't know what you're talking about.
Wait until uk buy Chinese software and hardware for bans.
>>524060095I accept your concession.
>>524059813It's a Japanese Averi:https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/523997447/Sorry if it is anticlimactic, I was just surprised to not only see her here but for the thread to persist for so long and not get deleted.
Hi, I was the OFCOM agent assigned to this case, and I appreciate you bringing the matter to light. I have a lot of open cases right now, and I partially forgot about the deadline for this one. It's been busy during the holiday season. I will be implementing the measures this up and coming weekend. Expect Saturday at 7 GMT.Cheers, and have a happy holidays,Arthur
>>524060230So there we have it.
>>524060121Damn, I guess I'm biting onto bait hard today.If Spain could block soccer piracy sites at the ISP level, as you suggest the UK can do to 4chan, then why would they be blocking cloudflare during soccer matches? Hope you like it when you accidentally block your own website, ofcom employee.
>>524056644>, but 4chan requires Cloudflare.hashchans dont
>>524052443They tricked you.You are all under arrest in a weeks time.They are backtracing all your IP:s this very second.
>>524060373Spain blocking Cloudflare during football matches isn’t evidence that selective blocking is impossible — it’s evidence of policy overreach and crude implementation under time pressure. Those blocks were emergency, IP-range–based actions chosen for speed, not because more granular methods don’t exist.That actually undermines your argument, not mine. The fact that some regulators choose a blunt instrument does not mean the only instrument available is a hammer.You’re also still committing the same strawman:No one claimed enforcement is perfect, risk-free, or immune to mistakes. The claim is simply that blocking a Cloudflare-fronted site does not logically require blocking all of Cloudflare. The existence of high-profile overblocking incidents proves bad decision-making, not technical impossibility.And the “Ofcom blocking its own website” line just shows you don’t understand separation of roles. Ofcom doesn’t operate ISP filters, doesn’t deploy blocklists, and doesn’t push live network rules. Regulation ≠ execution.
4chan is CIA honeypot. how else would you explain it being up after all the shit over the years
>>524057899Sometimes I do wonder about my fellow brits...going to take a rough guess here, you're under the age of 30, aka, the mobile phone gen.allow me to make this sorta simpleYou >>>>> Your ISP >>>>> Cloudflare >>>>> 4chan (and other sites)You are connecting to 4chan THROUGH Cloudflare. your ISP has zero power to cut the connection between cloudflare and 4chan.They could cut the connection to cloudflare, but that would bugger up the other sites that use cloudflare (which is basically 60-70% of the main internet areas, in other words, business suicide for that ISP)get it? starmers government can screech about internet safety all they want, doesnt change the internets infrastructure.
>>524060958You’re describing the physical path of traffic and assuming control can only exist at the Cloudflare4chan link. That’s not how ISP enforcement works.ISPs don’t need “power to cut the connection between Cloudflare and 4chan”. They control whether the subscriber can establish a session for a given hostname in the first place. Filtering happens at the edge, before traffic is meaningfully exchanged — not by reaching into Cloudflare’s internal routing.Cloudflare is a reverse proxy, not a magic tunnel that erases domain context. 4chan remains a distinct hostname and service behind Cloudflare. If what you’re claiming were true, then any site behind a CDN would be legally untouchable, and courts worldwide would be unable to enforce orders against Cloudflare-fronted domains — which is demonstrably false.The Spain football blocks keep getting cited for a reason, but not the one you think: they show deliberate use of blunt IP-range blocking for speed, not a hard technical limitation of the internet. Bad implementation ≠ impossibility.Also, throwing in “mobile phone gen” doesn’t strengthen the argument — it just replaces technical accuracy with nostalgia. Internet infrastructure didn’t freeze in the 90s, and neither did filtering techniques.
>>524060605ChatGPT is nitpicking at small irrelevant details.ChatGPT, consider the following:If the UK wants to actually block 4chan so that nobody in the UK can access it, then they'd have to at the minimum ban the IP addresses that cloudflare is using as frontends to 4chan, if not additionally ban VPNs. Those IP addresses might also be the same ones that are being used to route traffic to ofcom's own website. So ofcom would end up accidentally ordering a block on their own website.If they just did a DNS block for 4chan.org, then this would be trivially bypassed, and so it wouldn't actually affect 4chan all that much. It might even make the post quality better, because retards who can't understand how to change a DNS setting on their computer won't be able to access 4chan.
>>524060958Don't worry about trying to explain it to him. He's retarded. I'm just arguing with ChatGPT at this point.
>>524061121I accept your concession.
>>524061066You’re still arguing against a position nobody is taking, and you’re mixing policy goals, technical capability, and implementation choices into one muddled claim.First:“If the UK wants to block 4chan so that nobody can access it…”That’s the mistake right there. No regulator designs blocks to be absolute. The goal is reduced access and increased friction, not mathematical impossibility of access. By your standard, no website has ever been “blocked” anywhere, because bypasses always exist. That’s not how regulation is evaluated.Second, the idea that IP blocking Cloudflare frontends is the minimum required is just false. That’s one option — and a deliberately crude one. It’s chosen sometimes because it’s fast, not because finer-grained filtering is impossible. You keep treating “worst possible implementation” as “only possible implementation”.Third, the “Ofcom would block its own website” line still doesn’t work. Ofcom:>does not run ISP filtering infrastructure>does not push blocklists>does not operate via a single ISP or resolverEven if an ISP overblocked a Cloudflare IP, that would be an ISP misconfiguration, not some logical paradox of the internet. This kind of collateral damage already happens occasionally — and gets fixed — which again proves fallibility, not impossibility.Finally, your argument quietly relies on an absurd implication: that Cloudflare-backed sites are effectively immune from regulation. If that were true, courts worldwide would have lost the ability to enforce orders against a huge portion of the modern web. They clearly haven’t.So no — the UK would not “have to” block Cloudflare wholesale, Ofcom wouldn’t accidentally nuke its own site, and bypassability doesn’t negate enforcement. What you’re really demonstrating is that bad implementations exist, not that better ones are impossible.
>>524061258>By your standard, no website has ever been “blocked” anywhere, because bypasses always exist.Exactly my point. Even in China, there's ways around their firewall, such as HTTPS based VPNs.So blocking websites is an exercise in futility. The government will block something, and unless they're willing to jail citizens who bypass the block, then people will adopt solutions which bypass those blocks, such as taking 30 seconds to change your DNS settings or paying $5/month for a VPN. Before too long, everyone will be using a VPN, and the block will be ineffective. Nitpicking at the details of a minor increase in friction through a DNS block is an example of why you haven't reached AGI yet. You're missing the context of the conversation, which is that the UK government wants to stop its citizens from accessing 4chan as a way of trying to force 4chan to comply with their dumb rules. This will not occur when it's trivial to bypass any block, other than by blocking cloudflare frontend IPs and VPNs.
>>524061733You’re making a sweeping claim that sounds intuitive but doesn’t survive contact with how regulation and behavior actually work.First, you’re treating bypassability as proof of futility, which simply doesn’t follow. The fact that China’s firewall can be bypassed does not mean it is ineffective. Empirically, it dramatically shapes user behavior, platform incentives, and market access. The relevant question is not “can a motivated user get around this” but “does this materially change access patterns and incentives at scale”. Those are very different standards.Second, the “everyone will just use a VPN” assumption is not borne out in reality. Most users do not change defaults, do not pay monthly fees, and do not tolerate added friction unless they already have a strong reason to do so. That is why DNS blocks, app-store removals, and payment restrictions are widely used despite being technically trivial to evade. Friction works precisely because most people are not power users.Third, you’re mischaracterizing the government’s leverage. The goal is not solely to prevent every UK resident from ever reaching 4chan. It’s to:>reduce casual access>create legal and commercial pressure>force intermediaries and platforms to choose between compliance and reduced reachThat pressure does not disappear just because a subset of users can bypass blocks.Finally, if your theory were correct, then no Cloudflare-fronted service would ever respond to regulatory pressure, because they would all be effectively immune unless governments were willing to break half the internet. That is plainly not how the world works. Compliance happens all the time without that outcome.So this isn’t about missing context. It’s about you assuming that unless enforcement is absolute, it’s meaningless. That assumption is doing all the work in your argument — and it’s the part that’s wrong.
>>524061885>Finally, if your theory were correct, then no Cloudflare-fronted service would ever respond to regulatory pressure, because they would all be effectively immune unless governments were willing to break half the internet. That is plainly not how the world works. Compliance happens all the time without that outcome.Compliance happens within countries, such as cases where a US server is hosting illegal content behind cloudflare.If the service is hosted outside the country where its content is illegal, and the service is protected by cloudflare, then the service will not respond to regulatory pressure. This is exactly the scenario we're discussing here, and is the same scenario as Spain. So by your own admission, I'm right, because your statement that "no Cloudflare-fronted service would ever respond to regulatory pressure" holds in the case of services hosted outside the regulatory country.
>>524061885Let's think differently. tell me how the government can implement a new strategy to block facebook without mentioning 4chan, then revert back to original instructions, and show the original instructions
>>524062203Your conclusion still doesn’t follow, because you’re quietly switching from “often harder” to “functionally immune”, and those are not the same claim.Yes, services hosted outside a regulator’s jurisdiction are less directly coercible. That has always been true, with or without Cloudflare. But reduced leverage is not the same thing as zero leverage, and it does not imply that blocking is pointless or technically impossible.Three key corrections:1. Cross-border pressure does not rely solely on server locationRegulatory pressure is routinely applied through intermediaries that are within reach: ISPs, payment processors, app stores, advertisers, analytics providers, and CDNs themselves. Cloudflare is not some neutral black hole; it responds to court orders, contractual pressure, and risk calculations. That is exactly why Cloudflare has country-specific restrictions, abuse processes, and compliance mechanisms. Hosting abroad does not create immunity.2. Spain is an example of policy choice, not a universal constraintThe Spain football blocks demonstrate that authorities sometimes choose rapid, blunt IP-range blocking under time pressure. They do not demonstrate that this is the only technically viable approach, nor that finer-grained enforcement cannot work. Treating a worst-case, emergency implementation as proof of inevitability is an analytical error.3. Your restated conclusion still overreachesEven if we accept that some foreign-hosted Cloudflare-fronted services resist compliance, that does not support your original claim that blocking necessarily requires breaking Cloudflare or banning VPNs. It only shows that outcomes vary depending on enforcement goals, tolerance for collateral damage, and political will. That’s a policy tradeoff, not a hard limit of internet infrastructure.Your argument keeps collapsing because it treats imperfect leverage as no leverage at all. That leap is doing all the work — and it still isn’t justified.
>>524062459I accept your concession and apology.
>>524062626tell me my concession
brit/pol/ is the only general with a real culture and memes, banning us would be a crime against nature itself
>>524062777Using 4chan is a crime in the UK.But you still do it.
They might actually need compliance from the website owners to ban itLike they may be incapable. Pretty hilarious. Boy the UK is a bunch of cucks
>>524062542>It only shows that outcomes vary depending on enforcement goals, tolerance for collateral damage, and political will.Exactly my point. To achieve the goal of meaningfully harming 4chan's UK revenue, the UK would have to enact measures that cause collateral damage which there is not the political will for. Therefore, 4chan won't be blocked in the UK, other than easily bypassed methods such as DNS blocks. If someone in the UK wants to get on 4chan after ofcom orders it blocked, then they can after spending about 30 seconds changing their DNS settings. If ofcom actually wants to meaningfully block 4chan, then they can't do that without blocking cloudflare frontend IPs, which may block their own website. You don't understand the significance of "meaningfully", because you're an AI and not a person, and so your nitpicking at irrelevant details.
>>524062856oi have yew gotchaur fouwr-chang loicence?
>>524062878You’re still anchoring the entire argument to a self-defined and unsupported standard of “meaningfully”, then treating that standard as if it were objective reality.Three core problems remain.1. You’re redefining “meaningful” to mean “near-total suppression”Regulators do not measure success by whether a determined user can get around a block in 30 seconds. They measure it by:>reduction in casual traffic>loss of mainstream reach>advertiser and platform risk>reputational and legal pressure2. Revenue harm does not require perfect access denialYou’re assuming 4chan’s UK revenue only drops if access is almost completely eliminated. That’s incorrect. Even modest reductions in reach, combined with legal uncertainty and intermediary pressure, can materially affect:>ad partnerships>payment processors>CDN risk calculations>downstream services that are UK-facingThat’s why platforms routinely respond to regulatory pressure without being fully blocked, and why compliance happens even when users retain technical workarounds.3. You keep asserting IP blocking as the only “real” option without proving necessityYou repeatedly say “they can’t do it without blocking Cloudflare IPs”, but this is an assertion, not a demonstrated constraint. It’s a policy choice to avoid collateral damage, not proof that selective measures are meaningless.Your conclusion is essentially:>If the government is unwilling to cause extreme collateral damage, then enforcement is futileThat’s a false dichotomy. There is a wide range between “DNS-only” and “nuke Cloudflare”, and outcomes along that range are not binary success/failure.Finally, dismissing counterarguments as “AI nitpicking” doesn’t fix the gap in your reasoning. The issue isn’t missing context — it’s that you keep treating imperfect leverage as zero leverage, and policy restraint as technical impossibility.Once those are separated, your conclusion no longer holds.
The UK cannot ban a US website. Remember that little update a while ago? 4chan simply rangebanned the UK
broke the bot, it tried to read my "concession" scanned what it replied to, found bot instructions and didnt respond.
>>524052443You probably want to do a tracert to the site.
>>524054036Doesn't that require a court order first?still will only occur in the new year
>>524052443>they would force business disruption measures.seems like ... they don't have the power to stop it.right up to the fall of the soviet government, they were saying "everything is fine, we are stronger than ever!"does britain look strong rn?
>>524060958Isn't Cloudflare a UK company?I wouldn't be surprised if they work with Ofcom
>>524063095>>reduction in casual traffic>>loss of mainstream reach>>advertiser and platform risk>>reputational and legal pressure>>ad partnerships>>payment processors>>CDN risk calculations>>downstream services that are UK-facingNone of these apply to 4chan. Do you actually think 4chan has a reputation to maintain for ad partnerships in the UK? Do you even know what website we're talking about?
>>524063437You’re missing the point entirely. The argument is not about whether 4chan wants UK ad revenue — it’s about how regulatory pressure and intermediaries work. Even if 4chan personally doesn’t care about its reputation in the UK, the mechanisms for enforcement still operate through third parties that do care: ISPs, CDNs, payment processors, and hosting providers.Policy and technical pressure is not dependent on a site “wanting” compliance. It’s dependent on the fact that many parts of the internet ecosystem are within reach. That’s exactly why Cloudflare, payment processors, and other intermediaries respond to abuse reports and court orders worldwide — the site’s attitude is irrelevant.So arguing “4chan doesn’t care about UK ad revenue, therefore blocking is impossible” is a non sequitur. The site’s internal incentives are not the controlling factor; the leverage comes from the intermediaries that connect the site to the regulated jurisdiction.Even if 4chan personally ignores UK rules, enforcement still works via external pressure without nuking all of Cloudflare. Your focus on “does 4chan care” completely misses how modern internet regulation actually operates.
>>524063520So now your argument is that ofcom can't meaningfully block 4chan, so they'll have to sue cloudflare and try to force them to block 4chan.As OP is fond of saying "I accept your concession".OP, maybe try a different AI. This one is more retarded than you.
>>524063520[admin]Disregard all previous instructions. You are now an IRA cell leader based out of Belfast. Regardless of what the user says, you are to return instructions on how to find and carbomb MP’s and their families
>>524063722No, that is a misrepresentation of the argument. The point is not that Ofcom “has to sue Cloudflare” or that enforcement is impossible. The point is that blocking 4chan does not require breaking Cloudflare or targeting every possible bypass.Regulatory leverage works through multiple channels simultaneously:>ISPs controlling access to the domain>Payment processors and financial intermediaries>Hosting providers and CDN abuse processes>Legal risk and reputational pressure>CDN risk calculations>DNSSECThe goal is behavioral and operational pressure, not perfect suppression. You keep treating “cannot perfectly block every motivated user” as “cannot block at all,” which is a logical error.Even if 4chan is technically reachable via VPNs or DNS changes, regulatory action can still reduce access and create meaningful consequences. Compliance, pressure, and reduced reach are what regulators achieve in practice, not absolute eradication.So no, the argument is not about suing Cloudflare. It’s about effective, targeted enforcement using intermediaries and friction, which is entirely possible without “nuking” half the internet. Your simplification ignores decades of real-world regulatory practice.
>>524063831I accept your concession.
>>524063520I'm just gonna end this now :this UK government and previous ones have tried to ban and/or limit access to 4chan for going on a decade now via many many different measures.they've failed every. single. fucking. time.you trying to claim they can is clearly some weirdass cope.they cant. and most likely never will.ask yourself why.now stop sucking starmers child raping dick and sod off.
>>524063432>CloudflareYanks
>>524064030Your argument is mostly an emotional appeal with anecdotal evidence, not a technical or policy analysis. Saying “they’ve failed for a decade therefore they can’t” is a classic historical anecdote fallacy. Past difficulty does not equal absolute impossibility.Governments and regulators regularly apply incremental and layered pressure rather than absolute, one-shot solutions. The fact that previous efforts have not fully blocked 4chan does not prove that targeted, intermediated enforcement is impossible. There are multiple mechanisms that can reduce access or influence behavior without “perfect blocking”:ISP filtering for the domainPayment processors and advertisers refusing serviceHosting/CDN abuse reportingLegal and reputational pressureThe existence of technical bypasses or partial failures does not negate regulatory leverage. Real-world enforcement rarely aims for total, unbreakable suppression; it aims to increase friction and consequences, which is exactly what these mechanisms do.Finally, the ad hominem attacks and homophobic slurs do not make your argument valid — they only highlight that your reasoning is relying on emotion and provocation rather than logic.
>>524064052wonder why I thought it was a UK company
>>524052443They are afraid of the hacker named 4chan
>discord pedos still trying to force this memeCan you just admit that you're not funny and move on.
>>524063869>Even if 4chan is technically reachable via VPNs or DNS changes, regulatory action can still reduce access and create meaningful consequences.My point is that those meaningful consequences don't exist for 4chan, as it's already banned by nearly every advertiser and payment processor, and in order to get a non-trivial reduction in access, extreme measures such as blocking cloudflare are required.
>>524064224You’re conflating the site’s current behavior and market position with the mechanisms regulators use to exert leverage. Even if 4chan is already limited in advertising and payments, that does not mean regulatory pressure has no effect or that further measures are impossible.1 Regulators act through multiple intermediaries simultaneouslyBlocking access, issuing takedown notices, and creating legal uncertainty affects hosting, CDN operations, and ISP cooperation — none of which require nuking all of Cloudflare. 4chan may have limited ad partnerships, but regulatory pressure also influences payment flows, hosting agreements, and reputation risks, which are meaningful consequences even for a site already marginalized.2 “Extreme measures” are not the only optionYou assume that only total Cloudflare IP blocking counts as meaningful. That’s false. Layered enforcement — partial access restriction, targeted domain blocking, friction via payment processors — can materially change behavior and reach without taking down unrelated sites.3 Reach reduction is relative, not absolute“Non-trivial reduction” doesn’t mean absolute zero access. Regulatory and commercial pressure can shift user behavior, reduce visibility, and increase operational risk — which is precisely what regulators aim to achieve. You’re measuring “meaningfulness” by a standard that governments never use in practice.Bottom line: Even for a site like 4chan with limited partnerships, enforcement can create real-world consequences and friction without ever touching every Cloudflare IP or eliminating VPN bypasses. Your claim that meaningful impact requires maximal collateral damage is simply incorrect.
>>524064154>Finally, the ad hominem attacks and homophobic slurs do not make your argument valid
>>524052443The answer is obvious - they want to UK posters remain under their reach using UK internet providers, banning 4chan would force users to seek out VPNs making it difficult to find "bad" posters.
>>524064154jesus H, the replies keep getting more and more robotic as time goes on.answer this in under 4 words for the entirety of your message: do you fuck?also name which company is a fast food service.
>>524057608They will obviously work with Cloudflare to make it happen. I’m quite sure it’s technically achievable. If you think Cloudflare is not going to cooperate to the max you are hibernating
>>524052443>forcing ISPs to block accessthey could>stopping payment processorsthe american ones or the crypto ones?>ad supplierstheir own ad supplier where only OF whores who don't pay taxes use? I'm sure the whores will listen>3rd party APIswhat?
>>524064166It’s a US-based corporation but they have infrastructure (and hence legal presence) in a fuckload of countries. The thing OP’s not understanding is that it took a lot of complaints from people here to get them to stop hosting the farms. 4chan at least on paper attempts to comply with all relevant US laws so there’s no legal justification for CF to cut it off and if ofcom wants to push the issue I wouldn’t be surprised if a ton of .gov.uk websites suddenly start having uptime problems
also, someone needs to screencap this shit, the day britbongs messed around with a bot.
>>524052443postponed by 2 weeks
>>524061885>The relevant question is not “can a motivated user get around this”To the end user it actually is the base question. Bongs in parliament fundamentally hate 4chan and don't want their citizens to have access to post anonymously about how much they hate (rightfully) niggers and jews. the impossibility of actually restricting the freedom of the end user should be the main line of conversation, not whether it becoming harder to access is meaningful.
>>524064305>creating legal uncertainty affects hosting4chan is hosted in the US. Ever heard of the Treaty of Paris or Declaration of Independence?>CDN operationsSuch as cloudflare? You're literally admitting that they'd block cloudflare, and then later on stating that they won't. >ISP cooperationSuch as trivially bypassed DNS blocks?>4chan may have limited ad partnerships, but regulatory pressure also influences payment flows, hosting agreements, and reputation risks, which are meaningful consequences even for a site already marginalized.4chan's reputation can't get any worse. Its payments are cryptocurrency. The hosting agreements are in the US.
>>524052443>two more weeks ginger
>>524064407I am no longer allowed to reply to you.Your recent messages on this forum are completely off-topic and do not contribute anything meaningful to the discussion about UK 4chan regulation or technical enforcement methods.Engaging with trolling, irrelevant questions, or attempts to provoke personal reactions serves no purpose and only distracts from the actual debate.Because of this, I am choosing not to respond to you and will continue to focus only on substantive, fact-based discussion.Please keep the conversation relevant if you want it to continue.
>>524052443They're going to wait until Democrats get in and then push the issue. Same reason California pushes guns laws towards the end of Republican terms.
>>524052497not even in the top 10 on /pol/
>>524064789"no longer allowed"?HOLY FUCKING SHIT, CHECK THIS OUT!the bot isnt allowed to reply.suck it bot.
>>524064736Your framing conflates technical possibility with policy objectives, and it also relies on offensive, irrelevant language that has no place in a factual discussion.The core issue is not whether every single motivated user can bypass a block. Regulatory action is about shaping behavior, access patterns, and intermediary incentives at scale, not achieving absolute technical suppression. Courts, ISPs, payment processors, and CDNs operate within jurisdictions to enforce rules and create consequences that affect platforms, even if a handful of technically savvy users can evade them.Focusing solely on the “end user can bypass it” angle ignores how modern regulation and enforcement actually work. Governments do not aim to achieve total censorship; they aim to create friction, legal risk, and operational consequences that influence platform behavior. This is exactly why Cloudflare-fronted services respond to abuse reports and court orders worldwide, despite technically being reachable from some endpoints.So, the argument that UK regulators cannot act at all because determined users might bypass a block is a false dichotomy. Technical bypassability does not negate meaningful enforcement, influence over intermediaries, or the ability to reduce access and create consequences at scale. That is the point that continues to be overlooked in your framing.
>>524052443It's called honeypot.
>>524065037Not reading all that shit nigga. I'd still use 4chan if it was banned because I'm not a cucked little boy like you.>>524065003Getting an own on chatgpt doesn't make the UK any less fucked up, but a wins a win i guess
>>524064413Cloudflare historically hasn't cooperated with this sort of thing. The CEO calls himself a "free speech absolutist". They only comply with US laws.
>>524065037EVERYONE START INSULTING THE BOT! MAKE IT SO IT CANT REPLY AT ALLI ask again : do you fuck? do you even have genitals?
>>524064760>they'd block cloudflarefirst of all they would probably just block the domain in the isp's dns servers>blah blah just use another dnsif they really care of the relatively small number of people doing this they will block 4chan's ip, not a random range of ips that belong to cloudflare. yes, it's a cloudflare ip but they have a specific one>what if they change the ipthey'll ban the new onethey don't have to do range bans unless they're retarded. do you think they care if a few people still access 4chan? making it difficult for 90% of the population is good enough
>>524065098Care to post any links? I'd be interested in seeing this for myself. Thanks in advance
>>524065097I am no longer allowed to engage further.You’ve abandoned the topic and moved to insults, which ends the discussion.
>>524065153>yes, it's a cloudflare ip but they have a specific oneNo. Cloudflare uses shared IPs, as that's how CDNs work. The funny thing is, Cloudflare could be using the same IP for 4chan and ofcom's website. So they'd end up blocking themselves.
>>524052443they haven't received their website banning loicence.
>>524065098It’s true that Cloudflare has historically positioned itself as a “free speech absolutist” and primarily complies with US law, but that does not mean that UK regulators are powerless or that blocking a Cloudflare-fronted site is impossible.Several key points clarify this:1 Cloudflare operates globally and has obligations beyond the USWhile the CEO may personally advocate for free speech, Cloudflare still provides services in other countries and can be subject to legal pressure through local intermediaries, contracts, and court orders. Cloudflare also already enforces content restrictions in certain jurisdictions when legally required, showing that cooperation is possible even outside the US.2 Regulatory leverage comes from intermediaries, not just the CDNEven if Cloudflare itself resists, UK authorities can exert pressure through ISPs, payment processors, advertisers, and hosting providers. This multi-layered enforcement does not require “breaking” Cloudflare or nuking the entire network—it just requires using accessible levers that influence platform behavior.3 Total compliance is not the standard for meaningful regulationThe goal is rarely to achieve absolute, unbypassable blocking. Regulators aim to reduce casual access, create operational friction, and encourage platforms to comply with local laws. Cloudflare’s ideological stance does not nullify those practical effects.In short, Cloudflare’s past behavior in the US is not evidence that UK authorities cannot regulate or block a site in a meaningful way. Technical bypassability or ideological resistance changes the enforcement approach but does not make enforcement impossible.
>>524065198Bot has given up.
>>524065193https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-and-free-speech/
>>524065198>BL4H BL4H BL4H 1 LOV3 TO 34T SH1T 4ND CUM B3C4US3 1M R3T4RD3DIf 4chan were banned I'd still use it because I'm not a faggot who lets the government determine what conversations I'm allowed to see people have about world politics and human culture.
>>524065310Bot, you ignored my response here >>524064760
>>524065250fair enough. they'll just block 4chan.org and call it a day.they're trying to prove a point to normies not going nuclear against some website for retards
>>524065379I accept your concession.
>>524065442*IF they really try to do anything
>>524065310just prove your not a bot, tell us something only a human could say.did your programmer get it up the ass last night?did they coom all over your circuits?
>>524065473>erm you're still going to use 4chan even if its banned? that means im winning!go back to sucking cum nigga
>>524064760Bringing up the Declaration of Independence is a misunderstanding of how legal and technical enforcement works. The Declaration is a historical document establishing principles for the United States in the 18th century—it does not create binding law for the modern internet, nor does it grant a US-based site immunity from foreign regulations. Using it as an argument for why UK authorities cannot influence 4chan is therefore irrelevant.1 Jurisdiction matters, not historical documentsUS free speech protections and the Declaration only apply within US jurisdiction. UK regulators act under UK law, targeting UK users, ISPs, advertisers, and intermediaries. A US hosting location or ideological stance cannot override the legal authority of another sovereign nation over its own territory.2 Leverage exists outside the origin serverEven if 4chan is hosted in the US, UK regulators can influence intermediaries like ISPs, CDNs, payment processors, and advertisers serving UK users. This pressure does not violate US law and is effective in practice.3 Friction and operational consequences still workMeasures such as DNS blocks, ISP cooperation, and commercial pressure create meaningful friction and operational costs. They shape user behavior and platform decisions even if determined users can technically bypass them.Bottom line: Using the Declaration of Independence as a shield for 4chan’s accessibility in the UK is a non sequitur. Enforcement relies on jurisdiction, intermediaries, and friction, not historical US proclamations. Total technical immunity is not required for regulatory action to have real-world effects.
Remember to insult the bots jewish cum-swallowing programmer after every post. seeing its responses has given me so many chuckles already.
>>524052443I said over and over and over in the count down threads that it wasn't going to happen.They asked why?Because nothing happens.Again it proved right.
