SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the The-best-laid-schemes-o'-mice-an'-men-[an'-Congress]-Gang-aft-agley dept.
In Passing SESTA/FOSTA, Lawmakers Failed to Separate Their Good Intentions from Bad Law
The U.S. Senate just voted 97-2 to pass the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA, H.R. 1865), a bill that silences online speech by forcing Internet platforms to censor their users. As lobbyists and members of Congress applaud themselves for enacting a law tackling the problem of trafficking, let's be clear: Congress just made trafficking victims less safe, not more.
The version of FOSTA that just passed the Senate combined an earlier version of FOSTA (what we call FOSTA 2.0) with the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA, S. 1693). The history of SESTA/FOSTA—a bad bill that turned into a worse bill and then was rushed through votes in both houses of Congress—is a story about Congress' failure to see that its good intentions can result in bad law. It's a story of Congress' failure to listen to the constituents who'd be most affected by the laws it passed. It's also the story of some players in the tech sector choosing to settle for compromises and half-wins that will put ordinary people in danger.
[...] Throughout the SESTA/FOSTA debate, the bills' proponents provided little to no evidence that increased platform liability would do anything to reduce trafficking. On the other hand, the bills' opponents have presented a great deal of evidence that shutting down platforms where sexual services are advertised exposes trafficking victims to more danger.
Freedom Network USA—the largest national network of organizations working to reduce trafficking in their communities—spoke out early to express grave concerns [.pdf] that removing sexual ads from the Internet would also remove the best chance trafficking victims had of being found and helped by organizations like theirs as well as law enforcement agencies.
(Score: 2) by LVDOVICVS on Friday March 23 2018, @07:20PM (3 children)
It's ok to make a sell a machine purpose-built for killing, and there is no responsibility for that machine's use to be monitored for legal compliance, how can a website owner be held liable when their site is misused.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @12:08AM (2 children)
Website owners should not be held liable when their sites are misused, and gun manufacturers should not be held liable when their guns are misused. This law is just unconstitutional; don't use it as an excuse to justify more authoritarian nonsense.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday March 24 2018, @12:49AM (1 child)
I don't think he's doing any such thing, he's pointing out the hypocrisy. Republicans (and apparently a bunch of Democrats too) will happily vote to make websites responsible for all the ways they're used, but they'll absolutely refuse to make gun manufacturers responsible for all the ways their products are used.
I think it should be fairly obvious (except maybe to politicians) that companies/sellers can't realistically be held responsible for how their products or services are used in all cases. Maybe to a certain limited extent, but only some: it just isn't feasible for a gunmaker to keep track of where their products are, and keep them from being misused, just like it isn't feasible for an automaker to prevent their car from being misused. Same goes for websites, to a large extent. A message board can't be expected to police every single message there and proactively make sure "bad" ones aren't posted; it'd require far too much manpower. We don't require that of real-life messageboards, like those you see on college campuses where people (used to?) post things for sale, post road trips they were taking to find paying passengers, etc.
The OP is probably making this point because on the other side of the aisle, the Dems for a while were trying to pass a law holding gunmakers responsible for misuse of their products, which of course the Reps opposed. But here, because it's about sex, the Reps are perfectly happy to pass a ridiculous law that works the same way.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday March 26 2018, @04:04PM
On the last three campuses I attended two had only items which were approved by administration were allowed to be posted, and the boards were policed to make sure any items without the proper stamp were removed. One allowed anyone to put it up if it had the stamp, the other had the same staff who policed them put up new announcements (you had to turn the copy to be posted in). The third campus didn't have that system at all. One campus I visit now (but don't attend) has a bulletin board in the lobby of the library that is completely open.
We haven't required it of real-life messageboards through now, or rather the policy has been, "if you show you've taken action to police them you are responsible. If not then you are not." It doesn't mean it cannot be done, and needn't be cost prohibitive if you use volunteer moderators to do so. One could carve out an exception that good faith attempts to do so are sufficient, so that if a bad post gets past a volunteer mod there is still no harm.
This sig for rent.