With SESTA/FOSTA, lawmakers failed to separate good intentions from bad law

https://www.eff.org//deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-internet

by jakeogh • 8 years ago

715 184 8 years ago

Congress is a bunch of idiots. Online ads are probably the #1 spot for sex slaves to be found and returned home. Instead they drive everything to dark nets and offline methods of acquiring clientele, and thus making it harder to police and save lives. Not to mention all the freedoms this can potentially take away.

I'm against sex traffickers as much as the next guy, but this is not the way to stop them.

sdrothrock2• 8 years ago

Online ads are probably the #1 spot for sex slaves to be found and returned home.

I'd never heard of this. I'm not trying to call you out or anything, but do you have any sources or further reading? I'd be interested in seeing how this works.

dangerlibrary• 8 years ago

Linked FTA:

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/08/how-section-23...

bones6• 8 years ago

A YC (2015 I think) backed company did just this. Collated Backpage ads to assist Law Enforcement in tracking down child sex slaves. At the time they were called Rescue Forensics and were acquired a year or so ago.

Berobero• 8 years ago

Congress is a bunch of idiots

I mean, not all...

https://www.c-span.org/video/?442912-6/senator-wyden-online-...

zaarn5• 8 years ago

Welp, this is the (big) straw that breaks the camels back. While I've been somewhat slowly easing out of having my hosting services in the US, I don't think I want to even have business with anyone HQ'd in the US anymore.

What if someone phone's them up and says I host sex trafficking? Or I do something else illegal in the US that is fine in the EU or elsewhere?

I simply don't want the risk of the US gov'd or law interfering with me or my business.

Zamicol• 8 years ago

Where are you going?

Where can Internet refugees go?

pingec• 8 years ago

Germany

marknadal3• 8 years ago

Nowhere, just use end-to-end encryption.

The tools for building apps with it already exist: https://hackernoon.com/so-you-want-to-build-a-p2p-twitter-wi...

zaarn5• 8 years ago

I'm moving all my stuff into Europe. My main Server is hosted at OVH which has no HQ in the US (OVH in the US is a separate corporation specific to US customers of OVH).

I'm moving my mail to Protonmail, away from my current mail provider (which I was planning to do anyway once the contract ran out since they are against net-neutrality but I'll speed things up now)

My DNS is also currently hosted in the US, via Cloudflare and another provider. I will move those into OVH too but I'll have to wait for atleast two contracts to run out for that too.

Considering the GDPR, I guess the EU is the current bastion of privacy and a free-er internet.

nickpp• 8 years ago

Not to Europe, I am afraid. Europe is a bureaucratic shit-show with a big-brother more than willing to regulate what you say, how you say it, how to listen, how to remember and forget and soon how to think...

Just watching the GDPR mess makes you understand Brexit.

logfromblammo• 8 years ago

Maybe float your servers in international waters or boost them into orbit?

There's a decent chance bad US Internet laws will be struck down by the courts on constitutional grounds, but most other places never had protections for those freedoms to begin with.

On the other hand, if you're going to be an outlaw anyway, you might as well do it somewhere where your bribes will actually buy you some measure of protection.

DanBC• 8 years ago

Hosting sex trafficking websites is going to attract considerable attention if you do it in Europe too.

walterbell3• 8 years ago

While on the topic of censorship, https://blog.github.com/2018-03-14-eu-proposal-upload-filter...

"The EU is considering a copyright proposal that would require code-sharing platforms to monitor all content that users upload for potential copyright infringement (see the EU Commission’s proposed Article 13 of the Copyright Directive) … Upload filters (“censorship machines”) are one of the most controversial elements of the copyright proposal … EU policymakers have told us it would be very useful to hear directly from more developers. In particular, developers at European companies can make a significant impact."

nukeop2• 8 years ago

Github is perfectly fine with censorship on their platform and they frequently use it to take down repositories that use language they don't like, it only becomes a problem when someone else does it to them. That blog post is very dishonest and manipulative too.

walterbell3• 8 years ago

All online code/media publishing companies would be equally affected.

duskwuff• 8 years ago

Can you give a specific example of what you're referring to? I suspect that you're thinking of situations like the GamerGateOP repository, which was disabled because it was being used for harassment. (There was no actual code in the repository; it was simply being used to host a newsletter.)

Besides, what are you trying to argue here? That web sites should be forced to distribute anyone's content?

the_mitsuhiko• 8 years ago

I see no way this proposal passes.

pjc50• 8 years ago

It's still at the proposal phase, but I wouldn't be so sure. It effectively extends the "content ID" system from being Google's voluntary choice to mandatory in the industry.

snovv_crash• 8 years ago

So they've solved the halting problem then?

cornholio• 8 years ago

What exactly is the intention behind this bill? Do they hope the demand for prostitution will drop, and thus trafficker revenues and incentives? That seems ridiculous, as demand for prostitution existed throughout human history and across civilizations, mainly as a cultural artifact.

So we expect the services to simply shift to use other facilitators. Do they hope the new facilitators will be better for the victims? That, again, seems misguided: we know for a fact that traditional, pre-internet facilitators, like pimps and underground brothels, are exceptionally damaging for victims, physically, emotionally and economically. Any underground, high friction market, will have large margins for the traders (traffickers) and make the producers worse off.

Is the intention to drag prostitutes into legality, in supervised establishments where they can be protected by the state? Shouldn't that start with a nation-wide ban of anti-brothel laws that effectively force prostitutes to work underground?

So what exactly is the point of this bill? Denying independent prostitutes autonomy and forcing them in the hands of traffickers? Did they even ask themselves these questions? Do they even understand the purpose is harm-reduction across a whole at-risk social class, not some crusade against a Hollywood vision of innocence abused?

Klathmon• 8 years ago

I genuinely don't think any of these questions were asked or discussed in any real fashion.

It really sounds like this was touted as a way to reduce prostitution and sex trafficking and nobody involved ever questioned if it would really do that, because simply questioning a bill like this can get your name in the news about how much you support sex trafficking. And that news story will never go away, 10 years from now people will be bringing that story up about how you once opposed a bill designed to reduce sex trafficking, and how can anyone trust someone that once supported something so vile?

romwell4• 8 years ago

This is a really dangerous trend that needs to end ASAP.

With this reasoning, one can slip anything into a bill with a nice name. This has already done a lot of harm.

(After all, how can someone oppose the PATRIOT act when the nation is in danger? etc)

wu-ikkyu2• 8 years ago

The social dynamics of these types of laws can be traced back to the witch hunts of the Inquisition.

It's more about perceived sin reduction and dogma, rather than harm reduction and logic.

coldacid• 8 years ago

Beyond that, it's not even really about sexual exploitation at all. That's just a stalking horse for the real purpose of this bill -- to begin the process of eroding and destroying section 230 and normalizing the censorship already taking over the internet.

narrator• 8 years ago

This is a way to shut down any unmoderated online community using a troll army. The admins on the chans have been warning about this. Notice how this got passed the same week that youtube started banning legal gun and conspiracy videos, etc. It's part of a big online purge against free speech.

There are many unfortunate casualties in the current U.S political cold civil war that's been going on since the last election. They are seeking to eliminate anything that could lead to further unexpected political outcomes by going scorched earth on all kinds of online speech.

hedora3• 8 years ago

It is worth adding that both sides of this political cold war are actively attacking the democratic process. These bills were largely driven by the political establishment, but remember Trump’s response to the recent shootings: He urged everyone to err on the side if reporting suspicious behavior to federal law enforcement.

AnthonyMouse2• 8 years ago

This is a way to shut down any unmoderated online community using a troll army.

Which is nearly every online community. The economics of accurate moderation to legal standards are completely unrealistic.

People see hundred billion dollar companies and assume they're swimming in cash, but most of them have something like ten billion in annual revenue against a billion users. The total is large but the amount per user is not.

There is zero possibility of paying someone with the legal knowledge to make accurate balancing decisions to read and evaluate the legality of every user's posts. And short of that you're going to have huge numbers of false positives or false negatives.

Pass a law that prohibits false negatives and the result is false positives through the roof. Past the point that it will shutter legitimate forums.

themaninthedark2• 8 years ago

I noted the same thing earlier; Both Reddit and Youtube started banning stuff while the freedom of speech people were focused on Mark Zuckerburgs statement and Count Dankula verdict.

brighteyes• 8 years ago

What exactly is the intention behind this bill? Do they hope the demand for prostitution will drop, and thus trafficker revenues and incentives? That seems ridiculous, as demand for prostitution existed throughout human history and across civilizations, mainly as a cultural artifact.

I'm not a supporter of this bill, but to play devil's advocate: this isn't about eliminating prostitution, which as you said is impossible. It's not about all or nothing, it's about degrees.

Supporters of the bill think that by making prostitution more difficult, it will be more rare. That doesn't contradict what opponents of the bill worry about, that it will make sex work more dangerous: it's possible it will decrease the amount and also increase the risk.

It's similar to the topic of legalizing drugs: for example, it's very possible that legalizing heroin will increase usage (easier to buy, lower prices) but reduce risk (regulated product, less criminal involvement).

It's a tradeoff in both cases, and obviously reasonable people can disagree on whether it's worth it or not.

romwell4• 8 years ago

Supporters of the bill think that by making prostitution more difficult, it will be more rare.

Is there any evidence to that? The best the legislation can hope for is going to pre-Internet levels. Are they actually lower?

colordrops• 8 years ago

I think it's a confluence of multiple factors. First, lawmakers pass so many bills that they likely get desensitized to the effects of the bills. There is a disconnect between the bill enacting process and the effects on the ground, similar to the "bureaucratic homicide" that occurs during war. Secondly, the types of people that get into office are not the types that get decision paralysis, and are often further along the sociopathy spectrum than most. A third factor is that, other than for a few exceptions like Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, most vote in a block. And if a powerful legislator has twisted religious ideas about prostitutes needing to be punished on earth even before they get to hell, then they can take advantage of this group behavior and get their legislation passed.

salawat• 8 years ago

Very insightful. I think this bears additional emphasis.

I think you hit the nail on the head. As a society, we've relied on people making shallow surface level laws to correct deep, tangled problems for too long.

Our system of laws is in dire need of a good pruning back and rearchitecting. IANAL, but I have been doing legal research for a while now, and when I'm reading law, it is very clear to me at least that when you start looking at law as something systematic, you run into diagrams that would make any system architect have a heart attack.

The structures I end up at show a lack of "feed-forward" thinking in their implementations. Namely being structured with little or no thought to consequence, or guidance for interpretation or application built in.

For the non-techies who may not be able to understand my comment, imagine implementing something complex like an internal combustion engine, but never writing a manual or communicating it's specifications. That's what I'm getting at.

And yes, I'm aware that the legislature specifies executive branch entities to do the administrative law elucidation. However, there are far fewer release valves for bad law in those cases or means for changing overly restrictive guidance. Entities are given carte blanche to pass unchallengable "iron fist" level directives that have no recourse EXCEPT an already over-taxed legislature.

OliverJones• 8 years ago

The intention? Let members of congress brag that they're "doing something" about "sex trafficking." Opposition to "sex trafficking" is a hot button issue in right wing religious congregations these days.

I fear this is very much like anti-immigrant fervor. It's important for legislators to look like they're "doing something." But it's just as important for the measures they take to be ineffective. Why? because systemic hypocrisy.

This measure (along with anti-immigrant measures) creates / maintains an underclass of workers with very few legal rights. Because these measures are wrapped in a mantle of fake righteousness, they satisy both the need to "do something" and the need to keep that underclass going.

moomin• 8 years ago

This is the real story:

"While we can’t speculate on the agendas of the groups behind SESTA, we can study those same groups’ past advocacy work. Given that history, one could be forgiven for thinking that some of these groups see SESTA as a mere stepping stone to banning pornography from the Internet or blurring the legal distinctions between sex work and trafficking."

Too many laws in America are stalking horses for restricting, not just commercial sexual activity, but all unapproved sexual activity. And the people who'd be doing the approving don't look like people I want in charge of my or my kid's sex life.

Child pornography and sex trafficking are both real, serious, problems. We should deal with them, not work to make it harder for sex workers and horny teenagers. But for a lot of the pressure groups in this area, the second thing is _their actual goal_.

PurpleBoxDragon2• 8 years ago

One should look at the history behind why certain currently banned obscenity is banned, and what the goals of the groups were who originally pushed the ban.

Given that history, one could be forgiven for thinking that some of these groups see SESTA as a mere stepping stone to banning pornography from the Internet

This is one of their main goals.

blurring the legal distinctions between sex work and trafficking

I think this has largely been achieved.

TazeTSchnitzel• 8 years ago

I think this has largely been achieved.

Indeed, “combating sex trafficking” seems to already be a euphemism for cracking down on sex work of all kinds.

Bartweiss3• 8 years ago

I think this has largely been achieved.

Definitely true, and it's worth noting that crackdowns on 'trafficking' and 'abetting' sex work in the US consistently undermine not sex work but safe sex work.

- Acts like "renting an apartment out for a sex worker" become abetting, which drives sex work to happen on the street and at client's residences - the places where serious violence are most likely.

- Any attempt at collaboration, like sex workers sharing the cost of private security or hygienic supplies, can be reclassified as a form of trafficking. (The tortured legal logic is that "you give me $10 and I buy paper towels for us both" constitutes taking money from a sex worker and enabling their business, and therefore trafficking.)

- When Washington, D.C. attempted to crack down on sex work, women carrying condoms were arrested or forced to throw them away - a move which did nothing to prevent trading sex for money, but effectively undermined safety and disease prevention.

- When the government moved against Backpage, quite a lot of sex workers were deeply upset. Because the website didn't make sex work happen, it helped it happen safely, allowing workers to choose their clients before meeting them in person.

Over and over again, we see that anti-trafficking laws are actually used to marginalize sex work and destroy any possibility of a safe, healthy, or voluntary environment for the workers. At a certain point, it looks like the scenario of vulnerable sex workers who face constant violence is actually being driven by these laws that punish any worker who tries to live a better life.

azernik• 8 years ago

>blurring the legal distinctions between sex work and trafficking
I think this has largely been achieved.

The text of the bill makes this obvious; whatever the public rhetoric, the legal text talks about prostitution, period. No qualifications regarding consent or exploitation.

djsumdog• 8 years ago

In more sane high income countries, New Zealand, parts of Australia, the UK, et. al, prostitution is legal and regulated. If sex workers get into trouble, there are places and people they can go to get help. It at least attempts to be a legitimate industry.

In America, we have parts of Nevada and that's it. Filming a sex act and paying for it is legal (if you do your due diligence and make sure you have all the right paperwork, a good lawyer, and for good measure you should probably only film in California and Florida -- it's why there are so few industries who can afford the lawyers to do porn, but that's another issue entirely...)

The right way to deal with sex trafficking is to make it legal for people to do what they want with sex/their bodies, create as safe a sex-work industry as you can, and make it more difficult for illegitimate people in the sex industry to work.

This just takes me back to the Child Safety Protection Act of 1994. Over a decade later we're fighting the same bullshit.

BuildTheRobots• 8 years ago

I'm wasn't aware of the UK having legal and/or regulated sex workers.

The closest I'm aware of is that Leeds has the first (and only?) "official" red light district, and my understanding was that that's more a case of the police not asking or prosecuting rather than it actually being allowed or legal.

(There's plenty of discussion to be had over whether we should or not, this reply is more of a "oh really, do we?" sorta comment).

bitwize2• 8 years ago

As it turns out, countries with legalized prostitution have higher levels of illegal sex trafficking (the real kind, where people are forced into it as well). This is one of those areas where the rubber of libertarianism meets the road of reality. If you really want to curb sex trafficking, the best way to do it is to go after the demand side: decriminalize prostitutes, but punish pimps and johns severely.

Eridrus• 8 years ago

blurring the legal distinctions between sex work and trafficking.

It seems like they are succeeding already: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/9kgwnp/porn-on-go...

gowld3• 8 years ago

Perhaps the anti-sex crowd would stop being the vanguard of the anti-trafficking movement, if anyone else took up the cause with more fervor.

c3534l• 8 years ago

That's nothing unique to legislation surrounding sex. Rebranding creationism to "intelligent design" and "teach the controversy" are great examples of disingenuous legislation attempting to create precedent and chip away at at issues in the background. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that things like literacy tests and poll taxes were such examples. It's standard fare for the course in politics. Law is one of those areas where the "slippery slope" argument does actually reflect reality.

bitL8• 8 years ago

I think if you want to have a classical non-dying civilization as is known from history, you have to restrict sexuality and force desirable men to keep a single wife and vice versa. It might sound silly and not modern, but the history and its established norms can point out an "algorithm" that preserved continuation of humanity, despite how horrible it might seem and how taxing it always was. A question is if our technological advancements are sufficient to sustain artificial rules that would be otherwise eliminated by evolution in natural environment, or if it falls apart like all previous attempts to deviate from a known "stable" model passed by traditions of what worked before. Not sure I want to be a guinea pig for social engineers either.

See what Tinder did to dating; nobody can have any illusion they are getting a "premium" faithful partner and it pushes the attractiveness/transaction narrative and quick disposability to most intimate relationships. Not a way to build a stable civilization, rather a hyper-competitive cruel society where nothing is ever enough.

Unless these warts are addressed by a proper patch, our civilization has no future (IMO). I can wonder about motivations of those groups, whether it is really continuation of civilization, or just taking advantage of usual biological idealistic attitude of males to work hard for carrot-and-stick motivations in a form of a woman they desire, and harvesting that energy for their own selfish reasons, painting it white as necessary for everybody.

8note• 8 years ago

You can say the same about most things that happen currently. historically, civilizations that survived did not use computers, for instance. Thus, if you want to avoid socital collapse, you should enforce that nobody uses computers.

cookiecaper• 8 years ago

I agree with you in the broad sense. Social experimentation is dangerous and despite our rapid technological progress over the last 100 years, people are still governed by biological, not technological, forces. Many in society have lost sight of that today -- not uncommon when luxury and wealth abounds and people come disconnected from the hard realities they're forced to recognize when they're fighting for daily survival.

I have a few nits. Due to some lesser social sicknesses, polygamy gets a bad rap in the West. It's not always the right course and like everything else, there is the potential for abuse, but it is a normal and functional component in most pre-Roman/non-Christian social structures.

Also, national law is the wrong place to codify such intimate issues. Self-sufficiency is important along all axes, including moral and social ones. The community needs to be empowered and entrusted with the ability to make these standards on its own. Federal law is a very dangerous place for such things to wind up.

Anyway, this isn't really the right venue for this type of discussion, but I thought I'd lend some moral support since I expect you'll get eviscerated for this.

thaumasiotes2• 8 years ago

I think if you want to have a classical non-dying civilization as is known from history, you have to restrict sexuality and force desirable men to keep a single wife and vice versa.

If we're talking about what's known from history, this is total nonsense. Polygamy was permitted in China into the 20th century. China was the best place in the world by a whole host of metrics up to about the 17th century. It is still known now for the cultural stability it's displayed for the past couple millennia.

What did you mean by "classical non-dying civilization"?

Juliate• 8 years ago

This is ludicrous.

Traditions, as myths, are stories we tell ourselves. That is, social engineered stuff that stick around, because people care to keep them around, for various reasons (some, only for the ludicrous reason that "people told it that way before, we shall not change a bit of it").

Your civilization, our civilization, _has_ no future. Not one civilization on earth has had a future that spanned more than a few millennia. History is full of only that: civilization, as people, appear, grow, and die into something else.

They all evolved, changed, disappeared, what have you.

xg152• 8 years ago

There are so many things wrong with this.

But ok, if you assumed that "survival of our civilization" equals the survival of certain biological lineages, wouldn't the most efficient solution be to increase research into in-vitro fertilisation and synthetic sperm and remove men from the equation completely?

otakucode• 8 years ago

What exactly is the flaw in the system described in the book 'Sex At Dawn' that likely flourished prior to the introduction of agriculture? In a modern incarnation it would basically boil down to shared parenting of children and fluid relationship statuses. The point of monogamy was to establish certainty over bloodline in a situation where a male would be significantly disadvantaged by expending resources raising another mans child. That's irrelevant now. We're not bouncing from famine to famine, racked with plagues and wars, etc. Things are quite a bit better than they were at the advent of agriculture (which nearly ended the species but also brought many advances - monogamy among the former rather than latter).

matheusmoreira• 8 years ago

the groups behind SESTA

Which groups are you referring to?

pweissbrod4• 8 years ago

:%s/sex trafficking/mass shooting/g

:%s/gun control laws/internet censorship/g

--edit: before you reach for that downvote button - im not conflating the two crimes they are both depreaved and horrible in their own way. I am noting a high degree of symmetry in the reaction of a heavy-handed government 'take away the rights of everyone' to what is isolated incidents of horror.

In one case americans seems willing to relinquish their rights to the government in the name of safety.

In the other americans seems to consider this overreacting

yet to me they seem to have high degree of symmetry

Deestan• 8 years ago

isolated incidents of horror.

They are not. They happen with such regularity that you can reliably estimate them per year. They are empirically preventable.

pweissbrod4• 8 years ago

by "preventable" I presume you mean prevented by relinquishing all citizens rights and the rights of their descendents permanently to the government.

I'm not debating gun laws, Im pointing out how readily it seems people are willing to relinquish their rights in one case vs another which have remarkably high similarities.

PurpleBoxDragon2• 8 years ago

Are you talking about sex trafficking, mass shootings, deaths from alcohol related accidents, deaths from drug usage, sexual assault from drug usage, crimes committed by those on probation, crimes committed by people from certain cross sections of society, or crimes committed because we don't have a camera in every room of every house that is monitored?

Because most every bad crime out there can be reliably estimated and has ways of being prevented. The question is at what cost? We could prevent the vast majority of crimes committed by criminals released from prison by having all felonies punished by life without parole. But is that really reasonable? We could cut down on sexual abuse of children by outlawing any single adult from ever being alone with a child, regardless of relationship. But is that really reasonable?

And I highly suspect that there is no consensus on what liberties are acceptable to exchange for safety.

mattnewton8• 8 years ago

Why is the right to skeet shoot with a military weapon in the same breath as forums for free speech? The splash damage of these two efforts isn’t remotely comparable.

pweissbrod4• 8 years ago

You're diminishing the gun control debate. It means more than the right to skeet shoot certain weapons.

You're inflating the FOSTA debate, it mean less than a general attack on free speech.

harshreality2• 8 years ago

What is a non-military weapon? If you want to have a meaningful discussion, please identify the types of guns you have a problem with, and why, and how you differentiate them from guns you don't have [as much of] a problem with, and how you intend to avoid running afowl (sorry I couldn't resist) of the 2nd amendment.

You think the splash damage of free speech isn't significant? It's less immediate, but more significant. How do you think we got into modern wars like Iraq and Syria if not for media-supported propaganda, i.e. speech?

balls1872• 8 years ago

1st amendment - free speech 2nd amendment - skeet shoot with military weapons

benbenolson• 8 years ago

the right to skeet shoot with a military weapon This is a classic strawman argument, and you know it.

aidenn0• 8 years ago

About 90% of gun deaths in the US are by hand guns. If you seriously wanted to reduce gun violence, banning hand guns seems like the obvious place to start.

Handguns are cheaper, easier to conceal, and easier to shoot yourself with.

Banning rifles to prevent gun deaths is a bit like banning oversized rear spoilers on cars to prevent car deaths. Sure cars with spoilers look faster and there is an association with street racing, but most vehicular deaths do not involve one.

zaroth• 8 years ago

Why is the right to communicate with a military grade global network in the same breath as the freedom to speak and associate in the town common? The splash damage of hate speech amplified by the power of modern communication platforms isn’t remotely comparable. Do you think the founders envisioned people being able to communicate instantly and with millions of people across the country?!

Freedom of speech should clearly only apply to however far your voice can carry unassisted by technology. Anything else is clearly too dangerous to allow the common citizenry to wield.

</s>

The whole point of freedom of speech and right to bear arms is a citizenry which can literally stand up to its own government. I can’t understand in this day and age, with country after country ravaged by war, people oppressed, tortured, detained without due process, jailed for wrongthink, etc. how I’m supposed to take anyone seriously that think I should actually give up my natural rights as a law abiding citizen.

balls1872• 8 years ago

In one case americans seems willing to relinquish their rights to the government in the name of safety.

Actually, in one case, the lobbying groups are weak, and localized support in coastal areas. In other case, the lobbying groups are well organized, powerful, with a lot of support from constituents across the US.

Also, we (Americans) are stupid.

EDITED TO ADD: We (Humans) are stupid.

whataretensors3• 8 years ago

This is their tactic. Find edge case. Break the system massively in favor of themselves and donors while claiming to help said edge case, while most of the time not actually helping at all.

Edge case can be anything that gets people worked up. Child molestation, mass shootings, overt racism, sex trafficking, transgender, etc etc. It doesn't matter what your response is, the fact is people all have strong ones and are being manipulated because of it.

It's an adversarial attack vector on the entire nation.

smoyer• 8 years ago

Well ... it's what I've come to expect from our federal government.

userbinator• 8 years ago

One only hopes the growing gap between the government and its citizens will reach a breaking point, but unfortunately it seems too many are willing to stay apathetic and complacent, "because it doesn't affect me" while the government continues stripping them of their ability to revolt.

Not to mention the clever(!?) technique of naming these bills such that those opposing them could be seen as supporting the various crimes they are intending to fight against.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

rayiner• 8 years ago

Pretty hilarious/depressing WaPo coverage from when the Communications Decency Act was struck down in the lower court (before it got to the Supreme Court): https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1996/06/13/c....

Love this quote:

But a leading proponent of the legislation, Bruce Taylor of the National Law Center for Children and Families, said yesterday that the court "jumped off the bridge" with its "absolute" decision. Saying "the technology overwhelmed the court," Taylor predicted the Supreme Court would reject the ruling. "They haven't got a prayer of having this upheld on appeal," he said.

These twits are going to win eventually, just slowly.

Bartweiss3• 8 years ago

These twits are going to win eventually, just slowly.

This is basically my expectation for how all privacy and legal freedom end on the internet. It's easier to pass a law than repeal it, and so this stuff will get done by throwing up slight variants of the same bills over and over until they get through Congress and the courts. Constitutionality can be ensured by getting lucky with wording and a friendly court. Passage comes from simply wearing down the opposition, who are drastically less well-funded and organized than the advocates.

I honestly have no idea what can be done about it. Internet freedoms work like a ratchet, and even winning 95% of the fights means that everything gets worse every year and never gets better.

jurt• 8 years ago

These twits presumably spent two decades drumming up support for their cause while the tech community failed to give an answer to how the Internet won't affect society negatively. The results are well deserved.

themaninthedark2• 8 years ago

We shouldn't have to give an answer as to how freedom of speech and freedom of association will affect things negatively.

romwell4• 8 years ago

These twits presumably spent two decades drumming up support for their cause while the tech community failed to give an answer to how the Internet won't affect society negatively.

It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, and more so to prove that something will not exist in the future.

The burden of proof is entirely on the party that claims existence - in this case, of harfmul effects of the Internet on society.

The results are well deserved.

Hello victim blaming.

coldcode• 8 years ago

So if I post something about sex and prostitution research in HN then HN is liable for some criminal violation if they don't censor it? What kind of insanity is that? Would that not open the possibility of destroying an online site with comments (or even something like Medium) deliberately by posting now "illegal" things?

mattnewton8• 8 years ago

The cynic in me thinks this is exactly the intention. Shut down any site you don’t like, with the argument being literally “think of the children”

gowld3• 8 years ago

If you find clients for your pimping business via HN, with HN's knowing consent, then yes, it's a criminal violation.

hlieberman• 8 years ago

Knowing consent that it's used for prostitution isn't required under FOSTA/SESTA. Merely knowing consent that there's facilitation.

EGreg• 8 years ago

How many of the commenters read the actual bill, and not just about the bill? It's quite short, and it's on Congress' website.

I agree with everyone who says this will just drive prostitution underground, and isn't helpful. However, I am wondering about how hurtful it is to sites which are not designed to host personals or prostitution advertising.

Dating sites are in a gray area, and they have been vetting people's descriptions for a long time.

Social networking sites have flagging features, that others can use to flag profiles for review, under various categories. One of them can be specifically tailored to make sure this bill doesn't describe them as "reckless disregard".

All other sites that host user-generated content, such as programming forums, I think, are in no danger.

Again, this is not about the good intentions of the bill vs what it actually achieves to reduce human trafficking or prostitution. But rather, my comment is mainly about its effect on the vast majority of sites hosting user-generated content under section 230.

girvo• 8 years ago

I think you’re right; but it’s already having a chilling effect, with large platforms banning and removing content left right and centre to preempt this bill, regardless of whether it would actually fall afoul of it.

When you’ve got huge fines and jail time at stake, it’s better for the companies in question to err on the side of more censorship, not less, and it’s worse for everyone who uses the platform in question. So even though I agree with you, it’s already having the impact that a slippery slope argument would expect... that’s very worrying to me.

hannasanarion• 8 years ago

One of the problems is this line in particular:

The term ‘participation in a venture’ means knowing conduct by an individual or entity, that assists, supports, or facilitates a violation.

"facilitating" means "make easier or less difficult". Hosting a website that allows people to talk about things, potentially including sex trafficking, certainly makes it easier, and under this law, any such website would be liable.

skocznymroczny• 8 years ago

That's why free speech basically can't be selective. If it was Reddit banning /r/the_donald, all of you complaining now would cheer the development.

craftyguy2• 8 years ago

Reddit doesn't have to permit freedom of speech on their site. The US government does have to permit it, supposedly.

gowld3• 8 years ago

Facilitating criminal activity is not protected speech.

TheCapn• 8 years ago

For the longest time the argument for banning The_Donald wasn't to silence their voice. It was to tell their users to fuck off if they can't follow the site rules. They would constantly manipulate the vote counts or brigade smaller subs, more recently the spotlight has been about reddit's rules regarding advocating violence.

The problem was always that they hid behind the guise that they were the unofficial Donald Trump fanclub when there really never was an alternative one with a more moderate userbase. The_Donald is fine to exist but they seemingly refuse to stay in their playpen and ahve their fun, they need to sling mud throughout the rest of reddit while they're there.

And just to state it, I don't think TD is the only sub guilty of this behavior. I don't think its even an issue exclusive to politics but I really wish Reddit took a more hard look at their rule enforcement to make things clear and had clear transparency for their enforcement of the rules.

jochung• 8 years ago

The main reason that "playpen" is the way it is, is because the default news and politics subs went full Clinton, with moderator and admin approval. It's also an open secret that SRS and its friends brigade the rest of the site, and again, admins allow their rule violations to continue.

Reddit is not interested in being a neutral platform, and the constant scapegoating of the people they drive into containment subs as being the cause rather than the result is both tiresome and idiotic. If you don't want people to isolate themselves and radicalize, don't drive them away from mainstream channels.

One if my main gripes with the current American left is their inability to see themselves as agents who cause the things they hate.

pythonista-rf3• 8 years ago

instead, they banned the 100% legal /r/gundeals.

fuball632• 8 years ago

I agree 100% with everything in the article, but to play devils advocate:

A common thread that appears on HN is the nostalgia laden post about how the internet used to be "smaller" and more "personal", with forums and chat rooms ruling the landscape instead of social media. This article mentions that large internet companies will be able to afford litigation, but medium sized companies will not. Small communities, however, are able to be moderated by a small team of humans.

The reason why reddit/4chan/twitter/craigslist/youtube are forced into sweeping censorship due to FOSTA/SESTA is because they have user bases too massive to comb through without a clumsy algorithm. They will become the network broadcast TV; small sites will become the internet reaction to that, what they were always supposed to be.

Obviously, SESTA/FOSTA is the dumbest way to build a smaller internet, hurts more user than it helps on massive platforms, and spreads unlawful activity to even smaller, darker corners of the internet. But grasping for silver linings here.

AnthonyMouse2• 8 years ago

Small communities, however, are able to be moderated by a small team of humans.

That doesn't change the cost per user. You're essentially talking about having the users do the moderation, but that isn't enough when it comes to legal requirements. What happens when they make mistakes because they aren't lawyers?

If smaller communities take over it won't be because they're more economical, it will be for the same reasons that piracy sites continue to exist -- they're in violation of the law but for every one that gets shut down two more pop up.

fuball632• 8 years ago

Good point. Especially the last remark about two or more popping up; that's really the worst side effect of SESTA/FOSTA.

Beltiras• 8 years ago

Big question is if this will actually survive judicial review. I am quite sure someone will make a test case out of something. There's enough of "offending material" to make hay off.

mattnewton8• 8 years ago

Now what?

mr_spothawk• 8 years ago

did anybody else get the messages from EFF and ignore them?

m1el• 8 years ago

Does it mean that websites now must prevent encrypted communication?

U2FsdGVkX18IeqlFqCOknXszPyMqiWSyn99anjBcKIl8bINzaUyWc0Le8lgEcj6t

zoGfSQvhXeaoNfMyrEd9WA==

wuliwong• 8 years ago

It seems like a dirty tactic for a federal law to be passed making websites that promote prostitution illegal while the legality of actual prostitution is left up to the individual states to decide. I bet this isn't the first time this type of tactic has been employed.

scardine2• 8 years ago

I think it is more like cigarettes, you are free to smoke your lungs off but tobacco companies are forbidden to advertise.

Fair enough, I don't want my daughters watching ads about amazing returns for beautiful girls in the prostitution industry.

Consultant32452• 8 years ago

Would you rather your daughter hooking on the street making barely enough to stay alive because her pimp takes all the money or in a safe place with healthcare, police protection, and high earnings?

arca_vorago• 8 years ago

Here is the question all Americans should ask about legislation: "Is it constitutional?"

If no. Discard or modify.

hedora3• 8 years ago

I’m worried that it is. Most of the legal precedents in the internet space hinge on the fact that it is impossible for things like search engines to read every page they index, so mandating they do will ban search engines, and the courts doubt congress meant to do that. (Sometimes judges will say the law has to “scale” to new technologies, and then find in the common sense direction, instead of following the letter of the law)

Google has said that it is now feasible for machine learning algorithms to police user content, which undermines the legal precedent. Honestly, I’m surprised this change had to go through congress, since the legal precedents were on shaky ground to start with.

I think you’ll fund the framers of the constitution did not anticipate the existence of publishers that cannot even enumerate the things they publish, and were completely silent on this issue.

A similar oversight occurred with online privacy: The government’s surveillance apparatus is much smaller than corporate America’s and nothing stops the government from buying legally available commercial surveillance data, so they just launder illegal searches through private industry.

(The CLOUD act extends this to launder the searches through foreign governments, and also expand US law enforcement’s jurisdiction to the whole planet—that seems much more likely to fall afoul of the constitution. Issues of sovereignty and protection against foreign influence were clearly well understood when the constitution was written.)

Jeema101• 8 years ago

Malicious users will always find ways around machine learning algorithms, though. So if the law makes it impossible for someone to run a legitimate personals website (as it seems to already be happening with Craigslist), then doesn't that amount to government-instituted prior restraint on what should be legitimate free speech?

zerotolerance• 8 years ago

The real irony is between SESTA/FOSTA and the CLOUD act we've basically regulated Internet companies into mandatory consumer violation instead of protection. There is no end to this. If this extends to telcos then decentralization will not help. Today, we made the Internet into broadcast television. Congratulations to AT&T.

metalliqaz• 8 years ago

What do you mean by "mandatory consumer violation"?

kevin_b_er• 8 years ago

Let's ask a harsh question: Could a service like Gmail or Hotmail be declared illegal with this?

Mithorium• 8 years ago

What about airlines with online booking websites? People have travelled for sex tourism to countries with trafficked sex workers, and it's such a known phenomenon that there's no reasonable way the operators of an airline could be unaware of it. And yet, they still sell tickets. By the letter of the law, that can certainly "make easier or less difficult" the sex trade by facilitating the transportation of potential customers. Are they then criminally liable if someone is found to have flown on their airline for the purpose of sex tourism?

jstarfish• 8 years ago

I don't like the pretense of the law, but the hysteria surrounding this is truly astounding.

No, Gmail, Facebook, and Travelocity are not complicit in the sex trade by virtue of the fact that someone can use their services to conduct such actions. Section 230 still exists. Without it, yes, you might actually be right, and the internet would implode due to the liability involved in running any service at all. We already covered this 20 years ago.

The operative word in the new law is "knowingly." If Gmail knowingly provided services to a pimp, if Facebook knowingly hosted a group to facilitate trafficking, and if Travelocity knowingly sold sex tourism packages ("we see you're renting a hotel and a car-- would you like to add an underaged escort?"), then the law applies. Selling someone a ticket to Thailand isn't a crime. Giving them recommendations on the local brothels might be.

Backpage is in the shit because they knew they were hosting child prostitution ads and actively tried to hide it from police. Silk Road couldn't claim 230 because internal documents showed Ulbricht knew he was facilitating the drug trade (and even knew what the consequences would be!).

The message is clear-- if you're going to run an illegal site, don't participate in its content or market it for those purposes. Don't seed it or hire anybody to seed your content. Just stay out of it, run an agnostic platform and let the users generate their own content (4chan isn't technically a porn site, after all). If something is brought to your attention, delete it and document it-- you fulfilled your obligation.

You'd still have deniability as to what your users are up to; after all, you can't be expected to police all the user-generated content faster than they can create it.

coding123• 8 years ago

So does that mean Nevada can sue the federal government because it is legal there?

z0r• 8 years ago

I was spurred to make a sizable donation to the EFF by recent news (in addition to my regular per-paycheque) donation and I encourage anyone else reading this to consider donating as well.

whataretensors3• 8 years ago

If Facebook, Google, et al didn't want these authoritarian laws passed do you think they'd make it through?

They are likely purposefully doing this to create a humongous barrier of entry for new incumbents. And a fresh new way to politically destroy competition.

This is why we need to decentralize as much as possible.

LifeLiverTransp• 8 years ago

Prostitution devalues the defacto-trade currency of relationships- thus every creature dependent for well-beeing on a relationship, will put agents into motion to harass the consumers and providers of the "free-drug-trade".

So, yes, your wife is secretly donating money to harass prostitutes.

With SESTA/FOSTA, lawmakers failed to separate good intentions from bad law

Related Stories