Online Safety Ofcomminist's Attack 4Chan & freedom

The current battle over 4chan and the aggressive enforcement powers wielded by Ofcom under the UK’s Online Safety Act did not emerge overnight. The probe into 4chan began on June 10, 2025, when Ofcom opened a formal investigation into the platform’s compliance with Sections 9, 10, and 32 of the Act, which require online services to manage illegal content and harmful material, especially relating to age verification and user protections. Ofcom alleges that 4chan has failed to respond adequately to statutory information requests and has neglected its duty to prevent the circulation of unlawful content. This failure risks penalties including a £20,000 daily fine and possible blocking of the site for UK users. The issue re-ignited recently following 4chan’s explosive and unapologetic public reply, essentially rejecting Ofcom’s authority in blunt terms, escalating the confrontation and shining a spotlight on the broader challenges facing cross-border internet regulation. Beneath this confrontation lies a complex web of policy architects, corporate interests, and regulatory ambitions elements that help explain not only the current standoff but the wider implications for internet governance and digital freedoms.

The Architects: Perrin, Woods, and Walsh

It’s no secret among digital policy observers that William Perrin is pivotal to the story. After founding Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, Perrin left to join Carnegie UK Trust, where he steered its policy work on digital harms. Alongside legal scholar Lorna Woods and campaigner Maeve Walsh, Perrin co-authored the proposals that would evolve into the Online Safety Act. Their concept placing a statutory “duty of care” on tech platforms to protect users became the backbone of the new law.

Carnegie UK’s Role and the Corporate Backdrop

Carnegie UK Trust was an early advocate for the legislation, galvanizing parliamentary support and providing expert input on regulatory design. However, as the Online Safety Act moved closer to becoming law, the Trust was careful to distance itself: three months before the bill’s final vote, Carnegie UK handed its online harms initiative to a third-party agency. This move, timed just ahead of crucial Parliamentary debates, raises legitimate questions about the motivations behind such a handoff. Critics argue that this strategic distancing was meant to deflect scrutiny over potential conflicts. While presenting itself as a charity advocating for public protection and privacy, Carnegie UK had deep influence over a bill that would soon create enormous demand for age verification technologies, biometric data services, and compliance-related products. Many of these sectors are dominated by private, profit-driven companies that stood to benefit directly from the new rules.

Challenging the Narrative: Advocacy or Opportunity?

Carnegie UK Trust’s public mission is focused on wellbeing and responsible regulation. Yet, its unwavering support for interventions like mandatory age verification sits awkwardly alongside concerns about privacy erosion and data security. For many observers, including myself, the Online Safety Act has transformed from well-intentioned protection to a potential goldmine for the surveillance and identity tech industry. The close involvement and later distancing of policy organizations, the private sector’s readiness to profit, and the rise of enforcement powers, all entwined should prompt us to look deeper than official narratives. Is the Online Safety Act truly about safety, or is it also about paving a market for vendors playing at the intersection of public concern and private gain?

Why 4chan Matters: The Battle Over Control, Commerce, and Internet Freedoms

It’s crucial to remember that 4chan is a US company, headquartered in America, with ownership and operations firmly tied to US jurisdiction. The platform’s blunt response to Ofcom’s demands can be summed up as: “We’re American, fuck off.” That sharp retort captures a deep-rooted principle. After all, the Americans fought a war to free themselves from British control, and this digital conflict echoes those age-old tensions playing out in cyberspace today. Understanding the ongoing standoff between Ofcom and platforms like 4chan goes far beyond content moderation or online safety alone. It is a microcosm of a mounting global struggle reflecting how governments, corporations, and civil society grapple with power, economics, and control over the internet’s future. 4chan, infamous for its anonymous, minimal-moderation culture, represents a test case for the UK's Online Safety Act and by extension, for national regulators worldwide attempting to govern decentralized, cross-border platforms. Unresolved complaints about illegal content and refusal to comply with Ofcom’s information requests have triggered a formal investigation with severe penalties looming. Ofcom now wields powers to fine platforms millions or even block UK users entirely, ushering in a new era of aggressive enforcement some see as necessary, others as overreach. Beneath this regulatory clash lies a complex ecosystem where:

• The Online Safety Act, largely shaped by figures like William Perrin at Carnegie UK Trust, was designed as a protective measure but also catalyzed a booming market for compliance technologies, age verification, biometric data, and content monitoring that financially benefit private companies.
• Carnegie UK’s pivotal role in crafting the legislation, yet subsequent distancing ahead of its passage, hints at an uneasy mix of advocacy, policy influence, and financial interests.


• The enforcement targets non-compliance but risks collateral damage to internet freedom, user privacy, and anonymous speech, fueling resistance from communities and civil liberties advocates.


• The UK’s attempts to impose domestic law extraterritorially on foreign-owned platforms such as 4chan raise thorny legal questions, especially in the US, touching on sovereignty and free speech.


• Debates rage over whether these enforcement efforts can be effectively executed, with concerns about VPN use, digital circumvention, and unintended censorship dominating the conversation.


• The broader ripple effects concern the entire industry; platforms worldwide face rising compliance costs and operational burdens, centralizing control under regulatory and corporate powers.

This standoff between Ofcom and 4chan symbolizes a watershed moment, a crossroads between safeguarding vulnerable users and ceding too much power over online spaces to regulators and commercial interests. While online harms are real and urgent, questions remain about who truly benefits from the sweeping controls of the Act and whether it charts a sustainable and balanced digital future. More than just a platform under scrutiny, 4chan symbolizes the growing pushback against expanding state and corporate control over online spaces. Raising critical questions about who profits from the burgeoning online safety industry and what the future holds for free expression on the internet.