SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Internet Giants Support SESTA
Tech companies are cheering on a bill that guts internet protections
In a unanimous vote, the Senate Commerce Committee approved the Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act (or SESTA), clearing the way for a full vote by the House and Senate. As Congress wrestles over tax reform and the debt ceiling, it's still unclear when SESTA will reach a larger vote, and it still faces stern opposition from tech policy organizations and even some anti-trafficking groups. But with more than 30 senators already signed on, the bill seems primed to pass whenever it reaches the floor.
The biggest twist has come from the industry itself. After weeks of debate, a string of tech companies and industry groups have come around to supporting SESTA, leaving critics with few allies and narrowing options. It's an unusual stance for the tech industry to take on a bill that some say would strike at some of the internet's most fundamental protections. But as Google and Facebook face mounting pressure for regulation, SESTA increasingly seems like a workable compromise, giving prosecutors a new tool while fending off more onerous regulation. For anyone dealing with user-generated content, the result could be a dangerous new source of legal risk, one that only the largest companies are fully equipped to handle.
Also at EFF and Marketplace. Wikipedia.
SESTA Could Destroy Wikipedia
Wikipedia Warns That SESTA Could Destroy Wikipedia
For many people supporting SESTA, the discussion seems to start and end with "sex trafficking is bad, this bill says it targets sex trafficking and therefore it's good" (and maybe with a touch of "if it hurts big internet companies, that's fine, they deserve it.") But, the impact of SESTA goes way beyond that (not to mention it doesn't actually do anything to stop sex trafficking and could make the problem worse). It's good to see Wikimedia speak up -- and hopefully someone in Congress will finally start to understand why SESTA is such a bad bill.
[Update: With thanks to lgsoynews,
Here is the link to the text of the bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1693/text and, another link, from the EFF, with some IMPORTANT context in the beginning (missing from the official link) :
https://www.eff.org/files/2017/08/02/sesta2017.pdf (pdf)
--martyb]
(Score: 5, Informative) by lgsoynews on Monday November 13 2017, @01:41PM (3 children)
I find it astonishing that NONE of the articles I've read on the subject, on a range of websites, does provide a link to the bill itself. NONE.
Even on the EFF website you have to dig to find it!
Here is the link :
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1693/text [congress.gov]
Another link, from the EFF, with some IMPORTANT context in the beginning (missing from the official link) :
https://www.eff.org/files/2017/08/02/sesta2017.pdf [eff.org]
I'm also stunned by how bad and unreadable the changes are. They seem to be just a few minor changes (mostly a few words & punctuation), hiding the REAL significance of the changes to the layman (like me). Note that I'm french, which makes it all the more difficult of course.
---
Also, I'm stunned by the hypocrisy of those laws. Even if you ignore the unintended (I wish!) effects. Not only should sex work not be illegal in the first place (which is one of the main reasons that creates "traffic" and bad stuff), but that expression "sex traffic" is always used as a "think of the children" sentence : to create a knee-jerk reaction while ignoring the real issues...
It's really sad -and worrying- that so many (if not all) countries have been pushing -again- a "sex is bad" narrative for about 15 years. In France, this goes full swing as well. The damages are already there, I've seen the -negative- attitude of my young cousins (boys & girls, up to their teens) and I was frightened. And they come from very educated and quite open-minded families! I talked to a medical student a few weeks ago, she told me that she was shocked by the ignorance of the most basic sex knowledge displayed by the teens she saw during gynecology consulting...
I would not want to have a child grow up in such a toxic and unhealthy environment. To be honest, I'm really worried for my niece (18 months) as well. And on a personal level, as an adult, things are pretty bad too. On the surface, things have opened up, for instance sex-shops in Paris are opened directly on big avenues, with big windows that show all their stuff to the passer-by (this was NOT the case in my youth), on the other hand, laws & attitudes have gone real bad & hypocrisy has risen a lot (again).
"Don't forget children : SEX is BAD, ignorance is GOOD and prejudice is EXPECTED"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Monday November 13 2017, @01:56PM
The parent post is very informative - thanks! FWIW, I see three motivations for this bill:
- Electioneering: "think of the children" feel-good crap. Who cares what side-effect this bill will have, as long as the Congresscritters can wave around their support while campaigning in 2018?
- Expand government power and censorship. The acts they are chasing are already illegal, but now every website owner is a potential criminal. One comment by Joe Random User that can be seen as "facilitating sex trafficking" -
and facilitate is a very broad word - and the website owner can be prosecuted. Yet another charge to hold over people's heads, in order to demand their compliance with whatever the government wants to extort out of them.
- Follow the money. Only the biggest companies have any chance of policing their comments sections, and hiring the lawyers needed to defend themselves. What a glorious way to prevent upstart competitors from ever getting into the business!
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Monday November 13 2017, @02:21PM
Also, I'm stunned by the hypocrisy of those laws.
Don't be. This is strictly business. Prohibition is a form of regulation, a way to close the market to all but a select few. The "morality" angle makes it an easy sell to the public and still allows for the occasional... "indulgence"?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @04:03PM
I'm also not certain, but with sex-negativity comes a general neglect of women's health issues. This will backfire--is backfiring--in feminism's face badly. I wish I could care, but feminism has shown me personally with force and threats that it is not for me to worry about, because I do not have the sole body part (and presumption that such a body part is functional, and the privilege such that if said body part is proven non-functional, it shall not infringe on my privilege) that gives the privilege of worrying about such things.
Like it or not, it's a man's world, not because it should be, but because 3rd wave feminism seems hell bent on letting them have it. Sex-negativity is the gateway that allows men to control women's lives.
Puritanism is not good. Puritanism and sex-negativity are mind-killers, little deaths that bring total obliteration.