UK media regulator investigates possible online safety breaches at 4chan
Britain's media regulator Ofcom on Tuesday launched nine investigations into internet message board 4chan as well as several file-sharing services over possible breaches of online safety laws.
Britain's Online Safety Act, passed in 2023, sets tougher standards for platforms to tackle criminal activity, with an emphasis on child protection and illegal content.
The regulator said it had received complaints about potential illegal content on 4chan and, separately, possible sharing of child sexual abuse material on seven file-sharing services.
Ofcom is investigating whether 4chan and the file-sharing services failed to put appropriate safety measures to protect users from illegal content and to respond to a statutory information request. It also wants to assess whether they kept proper risk assessment records. 4chan could not be reached for comment.
The regulator can require platforms to take specific measures to ensure compliance with the rules, or fine them up to £18m ($24.28m) or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater.
Sign up to TechScape
A weekly dive in to how technology is shaping our lives
after newsletter promotion
Ofcom's announcement also said it was investigating whether First Time Videos, which provides pornographic services, has effective enough age assurance in place to protect children.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Why obsessing over ‘identity' is a stupid idea
Earlier this year, delivering the annual Richard Dimbleby Lecture, Gareth Southgate argued that in Britain today, too many boys and young men are suffering an identity crisis. They need better role models: only through emulating such figures can they reverse their own slump into academic underachievement, Andrew Tate-fuelled misogyny and feelings of worthlessness. The speech was widely praised. It seemed, if you'll forgive the pun, that the former England manager was shooting at an open goal. Few disputed that the fundamental problem was our boys' sense of identity, or that this sense needed to be made stronger and more resilient. Or maybe not. In this incendiary and timely broadside, Australian philosopher Alexander Douglas argues that the entire concept of 'identity', as we find it in contemporary discourse, is wrong. There's something undeniably odd about looking to others to find one's true self. Personal authenticity surely can't be a matter of imitation – and yet, for good or ill, we do it all the time. As children, we play at being superheroes, monsters, parents, criminals, police: we try to find out who we are by playing at being what we are not. As adults, Alexander suggests, we continue this role-play, but with a twist: we're motivated by fear to hunker down in silos of identity definition. Hence, perhaps, the rise of identity politics, as manifested on all sides: Black Lives Matter, the English Defence League, #MeToo, Proud Boys, self-regarding wellness crypto-fascists, the LGBTQ+ community. It seems unlikely that Nicola Sturgeon, Nigel Farage or Donald Trump would have been elected were it not for the respectively Scottish, English and American national identities to which their supporters cleave. Identity politics has for some time been excoriated by conservatives, but increasingly it is attacked by the Left too. Ash Sarkar, a regular panellist on Radio 4's The Moral Maze, who has described herself as 'literally a communist', proposed in her recent book Minority Rule that the Left's cause is being thwarted because the oppressed they hope to defend are being splintered into different interest groups riven by identity politics. If only black people, queer people, trans people and the white working-classes could see past their identitarian distinctions, and think along class lines, the revolution might have some actual prospects. It's easy to understand, Douglas writes, why we shore up our identities like latter-day Canutes. 'Drowning in a world where nothing is certain, where half of what we know is probably mistaken and the other half will soon be out of date, fear drives us to cling to the driftwood of various definitions.' Tech companies monetise exactly this insecurity and desire for stability. We're encouraged to present our 'authentic selves' online, the better for Meta and other firms to exploit our private data for profit – though the more heavily redacted, cunningly filtered and therefore inauthentic, the more engagement-worthy those selves will be. The central point of Against Identity is that these identities are not just generated by fear and algorithms but are fundamentally mendacious. As the late Christian philosopher René Girard put it: 'Individualism is a formidable lie.' That's a discombobulating axiom for the 21st century, in which individualism has become a religion for a society that's lost faith in God. Girard grew up in post-war France, when existentialism was becoming an exportable commodity, like fine wines or Brigitte Bardot, spreading its influence from Saint-Germain-des-Prés cafés to the world. The leader of the turtlenecks, Jean-Paul Sartre, argued that we have the God-like power to become our true selves ex nihilo – a tremendously hopefully message for those of us who are struggling to escape the inherited curses of family, class, sex, or (in my case) a Black Country accent. Soon, ironically enough, everybody sought to become an individual. Girard denounced the hipster narcissists whose way of becoming themselves was, ironically, to look like what he called 'a vast herd of sheep-like individualists'. Girard called this desire to establish one's authentic identity a 'romantic lie', and it's a lie that persists today, not least in Silicon Valley. Douglas points, for instance, to Steve Jobs's much-mythologised 2005 commencement address at Stanford University, where the Apple founder hymned 'your own inner voice, heart and intuition', which 'will somehow know already what you want to truly become.' How did we get this way? One account of human evolution, as related by Douglas, goes like this. For much of human history, there was no organised legal force to restrain the lawless thugs who sought to harm others. Coalitions of the willing thus formed to eliminate them and safeguard society. This is what the primatologist Richard Wangham calls the 'execution hypothesis': to put it roughly, the more aggressive members of society were bumped off or, presumably through some form of community-wide castration, prevented from reproducing. Douglas contends that this domesticated human society, which has continued to the present day, produced a civilisation that wasn't violent in a reactive way, as with the elimination of those thugs, but a proactive one: it enforces conformity to norms. Humans became selected, in the evolutionary sense, for their extreme vigilance in conforming to social norms, whether out of fear of punishment or, worse, being made to look ridiculous. 'People fear breaking the social contract,' Douglas writes, 'for the same reason they fear turning up to a gala event in unfashionable shoes finding themselves in a conversation where everybody but them seems to have mastered the appropriate slang or academic jargon.' (He is a lecturer in philosophy at the University of St Andrews: one wonders if he's speaking from experience.) One's identity, that is to say, is constrained and defined by the norms of our society. We are not meaningfully free to choose who we are. Douglas goes on: 'Many of our communities, whatever the stated purpose might be, are really identity regimes driven by egotism – patrolled and sustained by individuals determined to preserve a certain idea of themselves: a fragile idea that cannot bear much novelty.' This rings true to me. But the alternative Douglas proposes is, to put it mildly, bracing. He counsels something called 'identitylessness', which – following the philosophies of Girard, Spinoza and the ancient Chinese sage Zhuangzhi – involves breaking out of the prison of individual identity and realising that we're all, in a profound sense, connected to everything. 'We are the others and the others are us,' he writes at his most rhapsodic, 'not because we share an identity, but because we are alike in identitylessness… I believe we have barely begun to live in the world together. Our drive for identity is always getting in the way.' Alexander is alert to the complaint that this anti-identity vision might be deranging, that 'a world without identity is terrifying'. Not just terrifying, I would argue, but scarcely comprehensible. Yet he believes in it. At one point, he movingly recounts how he struggled to deal with his father's Alzheimer's disease. His dad's identity was being brutally stripped to nothing. A friend advised that Douglas should stop yearning for his dad to become his old self: give up the hope of trying to bring the father back to this world, and instead enter his. 'That turned out to be the secret,' he writes. 'My father was not vanishing but changing.' Douglas set about 'letting go of the things I was exhausting myself trying to hold on to, the things by which I had defined both him and myself, and learning to find joy in what was there'. The experience allowed him to fully understand the anti-identity philosophers he celebrates here. 'Nothing can remain the same. Trying to hold on to the way things are is a losing game. But love remains, because love can flow along with the way things change… Love is as supple as the world, and the world's transformations cannot erase it. Love is the opposite of identity and the secret to adaptation.' Ultimately, I'm not sure Douglas is right about love. Can we really love what has no personality or identity? Nor, closing Against Identity, was I convinced that we could really live identityless in a mystical communion with the rest of the universe. But the challenge he makes along the way to what many of us have become – narcissists onanistically buffing our fatuous identities, both online and in real life – seems to me more valuable and important than most contemporary philosophy.
Sky News
25 minutes ago
- Sky News
UK calls for restraint after Israel launches airstrikes on Iran
The UK has called for restraint and diplomacy after Israel launched airstrikes on Iran early on Friday. The Israeli military said a "pre-emptive, precise, combined offensive based on high-quality intelligence" had been launched - called Operation Rising Lion. In a statement, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer urged "all parties to step back and reduce tensions urgently". 6:03 He added: "Escalation serves no one in the region. Stability in the Middle East must be the priority and we are engaging partners to de-escalate. "Now is the time for restraint, calm and a return to diplomacy." Foreign Secretary David Lammy added that "this is a dangerous moment" and said "stability in the Middle East is vital for global security". Please refresh the page for the latest version.
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Five ways Rachel Reeves could launch a tax raid on pensions
Before Rachel Reeves's first spending review, a palpable sense of trepidation had spread across Britain. During her 11 months in office, few have emerged unscathed from the Chancellor's quest to plug the £22bn black hole she claims to have inherited from the Conservatives. Just weeks after Labour's election win, millions of pensioners watched on powerlessly as their winter fuel payments were snatched away, before a spectacular about-turn was finally confirmed this month. In her first Budget last October, she also unleashed a £40bn tax raid that put businesses, farmers and retirement savers firmly in the firing line. During her latest visit to the despatch box, she began with the choices she'd made to 'fix the foundations of our economy' before unveiling billions more in spending. Her opposite number, shadow chancellor Mel Stride, immediately branded it the 'spend now, tax later' review. Once the blows were traded in Parliament, however, experts were quick to predict that the only way to pay for her promises was through tax hikes. With Ms Reeves theoretically bound by Labour's manifesto promise not to increase income tax, National Insurance or VAT on 'working people', she will need to raise revenue elsewhere. Here, Telegraph Money outlines five ways the Chancellor could tax your pension to balance the books. Meddling with tax relief As a backbencher, Ms Reeves argued for a 33pc flat rate of tax relief. Rachel Vahey, of wealth manager AJ Bell, said it was an area the Chancellor could target, and that a tax lock was needed to ward off tax raids. She said: 'Pensions are incredibly tax efficient. They need to be to encourage people to put away their money today and invest it long term. But people shouldn't have to make long-term decisions in the face of increasing speculation. 'Instead we need certainty on pensions tax, so we're calling for a pensions tax lock – a commitment from Government that the current pension tax rules will stick, at least for this Parliament.' Calum Cooper, of Hymans Robertson, agreed that a flat rate of tax relief was one place the Chancellor was likely to look, but warned it came with political risks. He said: 'An alternative that's gaining quiet traction in policy circles is a shift in the timing of tax relief. Under a new system, individuals could contribute out of post-tax income and receive a government top-up, with pensions then exempt from income tax on withdrawal. 'The effect is fiscally similar and has no impact on take-home pay or take-home pensions, but it provides the Treasury with £22bn-plus more cash to invest in the short term by taxing income now rather than later.' Taking aim at tax-free cash Currently, pensions usually come with the option to take up to 25pc in cash tax-free up to a maximum of £268,275. Some experts fear that the Chancellor could look to make changes and target high earners. Rob Morgan, of investment manager Charles Stanley, said: 'I have a niggling concern that the tax-free cash limit is, operationally, a lever that's quite easy to pull. 'There is the potential to set a higher or lower cash limit fairly easily and target those with larger pension pots without disturbing the '25pc tax-free cash for most people' narrative. 'If the tax-free cash limit stays frozen, this would provide another example of the fiscal drag that governments are so fond of and it would raise some extra revenue. But it could also be reduced by any politician looking in envy at the amount being released tax-free from defined contribution pots.' Decimating salary sacrifice Currently, workers can sacrifice part of their wages to be paid into their pension. This is exempt from both income tax and National Insurance, fuelling their pension pot and boosting their retirement. However, millions could be at risk of a stealth tax raid after HMRC funded research into changing the rules. Under one scenario examined, exemptions for both income tax and National Insurance could be scrapped, costing the average earner more than £500 a year. Former pensions minister, Sir Steve Webb, said the research put a potential tax raid 'firmly on the agenda', while Jonathan Watts-Lay, a financial wellbeing specialist, said it would cause people pain either 'now or in retirement'. Shrinking the pensions annual allowance Currently, savers can put up to £60,000 or their annual salary, whichever is higher, into their pension each year before facing a tax charge. They can also take advantage of any unused allowance from the previous three tax years. However, it was only £40,000 as recently as 2023 before then-chancellor Jeremy Hunt increased it. Mr Morgan said that one alternative to restricting salary sacrifice would be tightening the annual allowance or carry forward rules – or both. He added: 'Carry forward is much used by those with lumpy earnings from year to year or have a need to 'catch up' on their pension savings – and it could be devastating for a small minority. 'However, one suspects that it could be one of those incisively targeted moves that isn't beyond the realm of possibility.' Andrew Tully, of Nucleus Financial, said: 'Such a change may also impact the ability or willingness of some public sector workers, such as senior doctors, to take on additional work.' Hitting employers with a second National Insurance raid In the Budget, businesses were hit with a £25bn tax grab through an increase in National Insurance contributions for staff. The hike, from 13.8pc to 15pc, has already led to a seven-year low in job vacancies outside the pandemic, while data has also suggested it marked the death of the pay rise. However, the Chancellor could go one step further and charge employers National Insurance on their pension contributions. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this could raise £17bn. Mr Tully said: 'This is a tax on employers so it may be less obvious to employees, although the impact is likely to hit employees in terms of lower pension contributions or lower salaries if employer costs rise. 'It will also have a negative impact on growth if employer costs grow, so it may not be attractive to a Government which is putting UK growth front and centre of its strategy.'
