Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday March 23 2018, @01:25PM   Printer-friendly
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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 23 2018, @08:00PM (3 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday March 23 2018, @08:00PM (#657240) Journal

    What's to stop "human traffickers" from posting outside of the US, but for US markets to see?

    And what's to stop "human traffickers" from posting in "gigs", for example?

    What was stopping it would have been the previous availability of personal ads on the U.S. sites.

    The problem is that it is intuitive (ignoring the extent to which it might be hazardous, full of fakes or cops) for people to go to the Craigslist site for their area, and look for sex in the personals section.

    If all the activity moves to a European Craigslist site (Amsterdam?), with the need to search your U.S. city, or moves to gigs sections, the customers need to know where to follow. Some won't make the jump. And the places that get invaded are still moderated to some extent, and probably full of fakes too. Might be easier to just use Backpage [backpage.com], or be bold and set up or use a Dark Web service that lists anything that Craigslist won't, perhaps with a cryptocurrency scheme for user votes and reviews. I don't know if one already exists (not a Silk Road type market, but something copying the Craigslist model and offering lots of sex, drugs, etc. and letting people contact each other and work out the details between themselves).

    So no more open bulletin boards online I guess?

    I don't think small forums with active moderation will have a problem. SN? Maybe.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday March 23 2018, @10:32PM (2 children)

    by RS3 (6367) on Friday March 23 2018, @10:32PM (#657288)

    I figured backpage would have to follow cl (and drop personal ads).

    So basically boards like SN might have to actively delete anything that might get y'all into trouble? ...which I'm in favor of, although like TMB, I support free speech, but since that's now gone...

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 23 2018, @10:55PM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday March 23 2018, @10:55PM (#657293) Journal

      In practice, I don't think anything will change. The law would only likely be enforced on large entities. SoylentNews is prepared to self-destruct if it needs to.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday March 24 2018, @12:32AM

        by RS3 (6367) on Saturday March 24 2018, @12:32AM (#657330)

        SoylentNews is prepared to self-destruct if it needs to.

        Oh, I and all of us surely hope not. Where would all the trolls go?

        Maybe we could buck societal norms of hyper-competitiveness and work together toward a solution.

        Congress panders to mainstream media, trying to respond to whatever the latest trendy viral fuss is, and invariably writes very broad-brush laws. Trouble is, they don't seem to follow up and correct the mess. Perhaps we could make them aware of the extent of potential damage. I admire your optimism, but I see this law as the "Patriot Act" / TSA of social media, eventually shutting it all down.