Britain has declared U.S.-hosted message board 4chan subject to its censorship rules, threatening fines, bans, and criminal charges under new legislation expanding online speech controls.
Note from LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac: The U.K., under Prime Minister Keir Starmer, is aggressively pushing globalist speech censorship measures and escalating the wars in both Ukraine and Israel. There has been growing evidence that the recent, large attack on Russian nuclear bombers, an unprecedented violation of the SALT nuclear arms treaty, was coordinated by U.K. MI6 agents. The British are also said to have been behind the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipelines, the destruction of the bridge to Crimea, the sinking of Russian naval warships, and provided extensive intelligence for IDF Gaza bombings.
Sabotage and intelligence gathering have long been U.K. specialties. Powerful persons in the City of London Corporation (watch starting at 6:40) financial district, as opposed to the British government, are said to play a large role in promoting and imposing the World Economic Forum's New World Order agenda.
If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net
(Reclaim The Net) — The U.K. government has taken another aggressive step in its campaign to regulate online speech, launching formal investigations into the message board 4chan and seven file-sharing sites under its far-reaching Online Safety Act.
But this is more than a domestic crackdown; it is a clear attempt to assert British speech laws far beyond its borders, targeting platforms that have no meaningful presence in the U.K.
The law, which came into full force in April, gives sweeping powers to Ofcom, the U.K.’s communications regulator, to demand that websites and apps proactively remove undefined categories of “illegal content.”
Failure to comply can trigger massive fines of up to £18 million ($24 million) or 10 percent of global revenue, criminal penalties for company executives, and site-wide bans within the U.K.
READ: Audit report reveals Canada’s controversial COVID travel app violated multiple rules
Now, Ofcom has set its sights on 4chan, a U.S.-hosted imageboard owned by a Japanese national. The site operates under U.S. law and has no physical infrastructure, employees, or legal registration in Britain. Nonetheless, U.K. regulators have declared it fair game.
“Wherever in the world a service is based if it has ‘links to the U.K.,’ it now has duties to protect U.K. users,” Ofcom insists.
That phrase, “links to the U.K.,” is intentionally vague and extraordinarily expensive, allowing British authorities to demand compliance from virtually any website.
This kind of extraterritorial overreach marks a direct threat to the principle of national sovereignty in internet governance. The U.K. is attempting to dictate the rules of online speech to foreign companies, hosted on foreign servers, and serving users in other countries, all because someone in Britain might visit their site.
According to Ofcom, 4chan failed to respond to its “statutory information requests,” making it one of nine services now under formal investigation.
What this law actually does is push platforms, especially smaller or independent ones, out of the U.K. entirely.
Already, popular free speech platforms like Gab, BitChute, and Kiwi Farms have blocked U.K. access, citing the chilling effects of the Online Safety Act.
Rather than making the internet safer, the law is creating a digital iron curtain around the U.K., where only government-approved content and services remain accessible.
READ: Tucker Carlson and Telegram founder Pavel Durov expose crackdown on digital privacy
4chan, long a lightning rod for unfiltered speech and internet culture, has no shortage of detractors. But the platform’s commitment to anonymity and free expression has also made it one of the last places online where users can post without algorithmic throttling or corporate moderation.
It is routinely blamed for hosting “offensive” memes and conspiracies, yet in nearly every case, the speech in question would be protected under U.S. First Amendment standards.
Rather than respecting these legal differences, the U.K. is attempting to export its more restrictive model of speech regulation to the rest of the world.
The aim is clear: if a platform cannot or will not bend to Ofcom’s demands, it will be blacklisted from the U.K. internet.
Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.
