Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
posted by takyon on Monday November 13, @12:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the tech-industry-siesta dept.

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]


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Reply to Article

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.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by AndyTheAbsurd on Monday November 13, @12:55PM (33 children)

    by AndyTheAbsurd (3958) on Monday November 13, @12:55PM (#596153) Journal

    It would be better and cheaper to just legalize prostitution. But this is the U.S., we can't have that because Jesus. (Despite the fact that the Bible says that he hung out with prostitutes, and avoiding the moralizing goody-two-shoes of his era.)

    --
    Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @01:22PM (10 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @01:22PM (#596157)

      Thing is that prostitution (sex workers) is not exactly the same as sex trafficking. People in the sex trafficking should be more seen as sex slaves. My guess is that this bill wants to tackle the second, but takes collateral damage in the process.

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 13, @03:31PM (6 children)

        by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @03:31PM (#596219)

        Thing is that prostitution (sex workers) is not exactly the same as sex trafficking.

        It's not, but I'll be that if you could perform a controlled experiment (perhaps involving parallel universes), you'd find that in the universe where prostitution is legalized and properly regulated, sex trafficking is much less of a problem than in the universe we're in. It's just like the War on Drugs: it's being made far, far worse by banning so many drugs (particularly weed) and having harsh penalties for them. Legalize weed and you'll probably find the opioid epidemic dies off and most of the other drug crime rates fall greatly. Basically, giving people a legal outlet keeps most of them from wanting to do something worse.

        How much of a problem is sex trafficking in countries where prostitution is legal?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @03:54PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @03:54PM (#596230)

          Well, I'm not certain we need a parallel universe. How does this work out in Amsterdam?

          I'm curious to hear a feminist perspective on that, since I know we have a few on here.

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:30PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:30PM (#596268)

            As the AC commenter that Grishnakh commented on, I live in The Netherlands. Sex trafficking is still a problem here, although you don't hear much about it, most of the news you get are problems regarding "Loverboys" as we call them. I expect this to be just the top of the iceberg regarding sex trafficking. As for Grishnakh's comment, I don't think that you can completely compare them with drug legislation/war on drugs. The reason for this is that people that get into the sex trafficking circuit are easily to be exploited (due to various reasons). You could legalize it, but those people will not suddenly be un-exploitable. With legalizing drugs/weed you get parties that start mass producing it and can push down the market value and destroy the black market's profit.

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Monday November 13, @06:25PM

              by bob_super (1357) on Monday November 13, @06:25PM (#596357)

              Additionally, people participating into a legal business (suppliers and customers) tend to be a lot more cooperative, when law enforcement tries to stamp out despicable actors operating in the same activity branch.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @10:59PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @10:59PM (#596537)

              Sex trafficking is still a problem here

              To what extent? Would it be more or less of a problem if prostitution was illegal?

          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 13, @10:56PM

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday November 13, @10:56PM (#596534)

            You could also ask an Aussie, or a Kiwi.

            As far as I am aware, sex-trafficking is not much of a problem here, (NZ) since prostitution was made legal.

            The issue always has been that it makes no difference how legal it is, there will always be prostitutes, so why not just give them the same protection as other workers and get them to pay tax properly?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @10:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @10:57PM (#596535)

          Legalize all drugs or get out, not just weed. Stop creating black markets. It is actually possible to regulate what goes into legal drugs so that people don't randomly die of overdoses when the drug they usually get is laced with something else.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:28PM (#596267)

        > My guess is that this bill wants to tackle the second, but takes collateral damage in the process.

        Collateral damage in the sense that they want to kill a cockroach in the house basement, so they literally nuke it from orbit, obliterating the entire city in the process.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @10:54PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @10:54PM (#596533)

        It's not, but that doesn't stop the government from labeling a lot of prostitution as sex trafficking to inflate the numbers so they can scare people.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @07:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @07:52PM (#596945)

        nice rose colored glasses you have there but all these "anti-trafficking" pushes are just thinly veiled covers for other less politically correct motives.
        anti human trafficking = anti immigration
        anti sex trafficking = anti prostitution
        drug war = war on personal freedom
        etc, etc

        as if these slave traders don't have constitutionally authorized work to be doing instead.
         

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 13, @01:23PM

      Not quite precise enough language. He was no fan of self-righteousness or malice. He had no problem with anyone trying to do the best they knew how though; pretty damned righteous or not so much wasn't really relevant to him.

      And, no, still not a christian. No need to subscribe to a religion to educate yourself about it.

      --
      Save Ferris!
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Monday November 13, @01:37PM (20 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday November 13, @01:37PM (#596167) Journal

      Sez right here: 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.

      Can it be any more obvious what this is about? Please, let's put away the philosophical mumbo-jumbo. It doesn't apply. On the other hand, it's propaganda value is enormous. Do what it takes to make the sale

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 13, @01:56PM (2 children)

        On the other hand, it's propaganda value is enormous. Do what it takes to make the sale

        Becoming the thing you hate [youtube.com], eh? Some prices aren't worth paying.

        --
        Save Ferris!
      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @01:59PM (14 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @01:59PM (#596178)

        I've been lazy about finding spaces on darknets for discussion about, you know, normal stuff like we discuss here.

        It sounds like it's time for me to get my ass in gear about it. This will pass, because why would anybody enrage feminism (indeed cisgendered women are the only ones who have the privilege to even debate this bill because of how it's been framed) by being pro-rape and pro-sex-slavery? Give it 10 or 20 years, and we'll see this get used for all kinds of tangential reasons that have little or more likely nothing to do with sex trafficking.

        This is a bill that's meant to lock in Facebook and Twitter as the the only forums on the internet.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 13, @03:28PM (12 children)

          Yep. I'm going to be doing some research today on viable nations to move SN's hosting, incorporation, and banking to without causing all kinds of extra issues for ourselves. The only real alternative I see if this bill passes as-is is to completely disable comments for everyone on staff so we can't be in a position to be "knowingly" anything. That's just not a viable solution for me and probably for many of the rest of the staff as well.

          --
          Save Ferris!
          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday November 13, @05:02PM (6 children)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday November 13, @05:02PM (#596300) Journal

            Sad to say there is no place to run. There is no safe space on this planet. Our only hope is to make censorship technically impractical right here and everywhere.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 13, @05:40PM (3 children)

              It's not censorship that concerns me about SESTA, it's putting liability on us no matter what we do if anyone ever posts anything (or even a link to anything) running afoul of SESTA. We can't afford to defend ourselves in a lawsuit without having to ratchet up the beg-o-meter's numbers rather drastically.

              --
              Save Ferris!
              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Monday November 13, @06:30PM (2 children)

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday November 13, @06:30PM (#596361) Journal

                It is a form of censorship, designed explicitly to shut you(collective) down via litigation. You still have no place to go if the law passes. I'm not expecting much from this supreme court to strike it down, even though it is direct violation of the 1st amendment. So, how do we defeat it, make it unenforceable? In what country can we install our invincible servers that can't be identified, tracked, and shutdown? There isn't one. And the real problem is that there is no resistance. The majority continues to vote for it. How do we deal with that kind of tyranny?

                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday November 13, @07:39PM (1 child)

                  You still have no place to go if the law passes.

                  Not necessarily true. Russia and China, off the top of my head, don't give a flying fuck about US laws as a general rule. Granted they're not especially free speech friendly either, which is why I'm looking around.

                  --
                  Save Ferris!
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @12:15AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @12:15AM (#596563)

                    The places you named would take over your site for different sorts of criticisms.
                    On the other hand, your site and *not* your person or livelihood would be at risk if you hosted in those countries, i.e., "Come and get me, Russkies and Chicoms."

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @12:31AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @12:31AM (#596580)

              But they start with people being willing to renounce their current citizenship without gaining another to provide the legal latitude necessary to enact them.

              I won't go into specifics here, but the short term answer would be to look into 3rd world nation with a decent backbone running through it and lax internet regulations. Another alternative might be overtures to Sealand about hosting there, but the upfront infrastructure costs would be a few hundred grand. It is close enough that a dedicated fiber or cluster of wifi/microwave links could be run to Britain for not that much money, but in addition to ongoing hosting costs there would be the need to convince them to deploy solar/wind/battery sufficient to provide redundant failover access, plus say a microwave uplink to france or the netherlands as a redundant internet link.

              Assuming SESTA passes, it might be enough to get a crowdfunding campaign going to refurbish sealand for that purpose, Prince Michael Bates willing of course.

          • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday November 13, @06:17PM (3 children)

            by RamiK (1813) on Monday November 13, @06:17PM (#596350)

            Check Ireland first. Something tells me Apple & Co. didn't stop with just the tax code.

            --
            compiling...
          • (Score: 2) by arcz on Tuesday November 14, @04:46PM

            by arcz (4501) on Tuesday November 14, @04:46PM (#596854)

            Before that, I'd file a lawsuit against the bill. I'm not a lawyer myself, but I'd be willing to take it on pro se.
            The great thing about the first amendment is that it includes the right both to speak and to listen.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @11:56PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @11:56PM (#596552)

          But as an important warning: Unless the majority of nodes have Intel ME/AMD PSP/ARM TrustZone secured/disabled, the anonymity of the network could severely reduced even if the actual content of specific messages isn't.

          I2P does more to mask traffic with cover traffic, but doesn't currently include traffic padding to help avoid all forms of packet matching inference. Tor has the same problem, but TorV3 hidden services supposedly make the service you are connecting to harder to discern. I did not see any clear discussion on how well that works in practice, given that site traffic without randomized/standard packet length padding will be easy to infer over time, and given sufficient popularity of only a few hidden sites would be difficult to cover up as any other site.

          As far as discussions go, #salt and #i2p-chat on IRC2P can provide some of that space. There are also a couple social networks up on it, but most of the people there are there to AVOID traditional social networking, so they aren't popular. IRC, XMPP, Retroshare, and Vuze are probably the biggest communication platforms with some providing clearnet bridging on a per channel or per node basis.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:41PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:41PM (#596281)

        "...only the largest companies are fully equipped to handle."
        Can it be any more obvious what this is about?

        Crony capitalism. A good many "regulations" are not from gov't-hugging socialists, but big co's trying to keep away new competition.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by lgsoynews on Monday November 13, @01:41PM (3 children)

    by lgsoynews (1235) on Monday November 13, @01:41PM (#596169)

    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, @01:56PM

      by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @01:56PM (#596173) Homepage Journal

      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, @02:21PM

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday November 13, @02:21PM (#596189) Journal

      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"?

    • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:03PM (#596239)

      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.

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday November 13, @02:05PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @02:05PM (#596184)

    Yes, I know, "you own your comments, yadda-yadda".
    IANAL, but seems to me that under SESTA if the (who? operators? owners?) know about illegal content, they must (do what?) or suffer consequences.

    E.g. does the "Deuter0n0my, young wives" troll fall under illegal content? Seems to me as an encouragement (abetting?) to paedo- behaviour, so what gives?

    ---

    TMB, why the heck are you still keeping the lame filter active?
    "Dick niggers" episode should have shown it does nothing of value but annoy the heck out of legit posters!

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by crafoo on Monday November 13, @02:06PM

    by crafoo (6639) on Monday November 13, @02:06PM (#596185)

    Barriers to entry, bought and paid for by the large tech corporations "reluctantly" agreeing with this.

    Paid-for legislation, probably written by the tech companies.

    We didn't meekly accept the internet control and censorship our masters so desperately want. Now they will ask us to please think of the children. It's like we never learn.

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Monday November 13, @03:09PM (1 child)

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @03:09PM (#596209) Homepage Journal

    A lot, a lot of our great politicians are supporting this bill. Senator Feinstein, one of our greatest Democrats and a beautiful woman, loves it. She's not beautiful, she's got a beautiful heart. A heart of gold, which I love. Senator Portman, a great Republican. Probably a great Republican. Very big Second Amendment guy. He loves his guns. As does Senator Feinstein, she loves guns. She doesn't love the Second Amendment but she's a proud gun owner. Senator Blumenthal, another Dem. I've said some things about his Vietnam record that didn't exist, for years he said it did, but it didn't. But he made a smart move, he's sponsoring SESTA. Senator McCain, we all know what he did in Vietnam. He got himself shot down, not great. Senator McCain, supposedly, is a Republican. A lot, a lot of the time I wonder. He "torpedoed" us on Obamacare, on repealing & replacing Obamacare. So good with a torpedo, maybe he should have been in the Navy instead of the Air Force. But he made a smart move, he got on board with SESTA. With one finger on the eject button, I'm sure. Senator McCaskill, another beautiful Dem. Inside and out. Not a natural blond, I don't think that's her natural color. But it looks good on her. As does her support for SESTA. And so many more fine senators from both parties. Senators Heitkamp, Blunt, Capito, Casey, Collins,, Graham, Isakson, Klobuchar, Lankford, Lee, Nelson, Brown, Murkowski, Shaheen, Hoeven and Cochran. Senators Corker, Cruz, Flake and Rubio, not great guys, they've done some things that aren't great. Far from great. People make mistakes. You've made mistakes. We all make mistakes. But this is a great thing they're doing, they're standing for SESTA. Standing up for our kids and young people, and some not so young, but young enough to have sex. Young enough that someone would pay to have sex with them. Which is happening on a lot, a lot of our cyber sites.

    Our biggest, greatest cyber companies love SESTA. Sheryl from Facebook loves it, Facebook is all for it. 21st Century Fox, which is Fox News, loves it. Disney, which does great work with our precious children, loves it. Google, Oracle and HP, some of our biggest, greatest cyber companies, love it.

    I've said before, we have kids that are watching the Internet . They’re young, they’re impressionable. We're losing a lot of people because of the Internet. We have to, in certain areas, close that Internet up in some ways. We have to do something about that Internet. SESTA will do something about it. Somebody will say, "Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech." These are foolish people. The ACLU, the EFF, are very foolish. They're LOSERS. Folks, tell your senators, don't listen to the fools. Don't listen to the losers. Tell them to pass SESTA! I urge our Senators to pass SESTA. I think we already have the votes. We feel confident we have the votes. I'm almost certain we have the votes. I am sitting in the Philippines with a pen in hand, waiting for our senators to give it to me. I have pen in hand. Believe me, I'm in Philippines, I have pen in hand. 🇺🇸🇵🇭

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @12:29AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @12:29AM (#596577)

      Jesus, you should be Trump's speechwriter--if only he gave a rip about wasting 20 minutes practicing reading prepared communication.

  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @03:10PM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @03:10PM (#596210)

    I am surprised nobody has mentioned a major driver behind this: feminists.
    (They are riding a high wave right now, with girls promoted over boys at all times.)

    Feminists are the allies of the Bible thumpers in the effort to prohibit the unerradicated "scourge" of prostitution because feminists don't like the male/female relationship therein. Men get what they want, all for a one time fee, and are free to choose another woman at any time. The men are not locked in and don't have to put up with bad attitudes.

    Of course, this being the Internet, I will be explicit and say I do not in any way support sex slavery. I don't use the services of prostitutes either.

    Do we need new laws to address the problem of sex slavery? I'd rather hear about real cops busting those rings than politicians bragging about some new law they passed.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @03:19PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @03:19PM (#596213)

      I'd rather hear about real cops busting those rings

      But that would be...police brutality!

      Can't win, I'm afraid.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @03:54PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @03:54PM (#596232)

      Among third-wave (i.e. most modern) feminists, sex work is generally seen as something to be supported. There's the derogatory term “SWERF [wiktionary.org]” (Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminist) used to describe those who identify as feminists but don't support sex workers. So blaming feminists for this is at best misleading.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday November 13, @04:18PM (7 children)

        by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Monday November 13, @04:18PM (#596250) Journal

        This “exclusionary” subspecies of feminism is multiplying!

        When do we admit that feminism as a whole has some huge problems, that these are not inconsequential nutbags that nobody listens to? Obviously, somebody is listening to them: men with power! How many more exclusionary subspecies of feminist will crop up until there are no more feminists, only various exclusionary feminists?

        --
        Merry fucking Christmas!
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Monday November 13, @09:29PM (6 children)

          by meustrus (4961) <{meustrus} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday November 13, @09:29PM (#596473)

          When do we admit that feminism is just an idea that many people come to support without any overarching organization to set any kind of standards? How many more feminist-bashers will pop up until there are no more rational discussions, only various angry internet trolls?

          --
          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative.
          • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Monday November 13, @10:01PM (1 child)

            by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Monday November 13, @10:01PM (#596500) Journal

            What is feminism? It seems to be a concept that's become so dilute that it's become a concept controlled entirely by people who see it as a cudgel.

            What feminism is to me is a cudgel, because that's how it was used against me time and time again. The people who use that cudgel always know better than one. They know better than I do whether my genitals should have been mutilated at birth. They know better than I do whether or not testosterone causes me debilitating headaches. They know better than I do who I should be having sex with. They know better than I do which section of the store clothes that fit the shape of my body come from. They know better than I do the reason I wasted so much time mentoring women in programming.

            Others on this board see feminism as an empowering ideal of equality. Their feminism stands against those things and tells the individual that the the individual knows best.

            When the cudgels are raining down and the wielder carries the banner of feminism, well, here we are.

            Now for the next trick, what moniker could we possibly come up with to represent individualist values that would not be turned around by those who believe themselves our masters?

            --
            Merry fucking Christmas!
          • (Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 13, @10:09PM (3 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday November 13, @10:09PM (#596507)

            Well, our local MtF up there has such a massive bee in her bonnet over a small group of TERF assholes in Michigan that she's willing to throw every feminist on the planet under the bus because of it. I've tried pointing out to her how fucked up and counterproductive this is and she doesn't care. So ignore her, is my advice.

            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15, @03:03PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 15, @03:03PM (#597297)

              No, not every "feminist" - just you.

              • (Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday November 15, @10:14PM (1 child)

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday November 15, @10:14PM (#597488)

                You don't read very well, do you? I've made the point to her over and over again that most feminists, including me, are trans-*inclusive.* That the Michigan Womyns' Music Festival is to feminism something like what the Westboro Baptist Church is to American Protestantism at large. That I personally have almost as many trans friends as cisgender ones. And she does. Not. Care. And I'm getting tired of it.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 16, @03:14AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 16, @03:14AM (#597567)

                  Her? Or it?

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:19PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:19PM (#596314)

      "Woman's Christian Temperance Union" -- This shit goes way back. Women are more authoritarian than men. Aside from that, liberalism is dead anyway.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Gaaark on Monday November 13, @04:28PM (2 children)

    by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @04:28PM (#596264) Homepage Journal

    Anymore, education sucks!

    How many kids graduating today/recently can't read, write or do basic maths.

    It seems you can't hold kids back, it hurts them socially and emotionally.
    You can't give kids a lot of homework, it pisses off the helicopter parents.
    You can't suspend kids who AREN'T there to learn and are just disrupting the kids who ARE there to learn, 'cause snowflakes or something.

    The curriculum no longer has forces the 3 R's, leading to kids who can't do the 3 R's but HAVE to go to French class (here in Canada because of the blackmail from Quebec (thanks, fecking Trudeau-ass#1).

    Kids can't think anymore, cause that's not taught. Can't reason things out. Can't think for themselves. Can barely get a job beyond "would you like fries with that".

    Kids just go on fuckbook and think what they are told, which is why fake news spreads so quickly: kids can't tell what is real and what is fake, either by simple logic or by researching.

    The edumacation system is failing because money is siphoned off for more important things....errr....pork barreling.

    Just like how research used to be open and shared, now it has been robbed of money unless it is corporate owned and closed for patenting.....

    We need to take back our world from corporate greed and politicking. We need to bring back sanity and good governance.

    --
    --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
    • (Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Monday November 13, @09:56PM

      by cmdrklarg (5048) on Monday November 13, @09:56PM (#596497)

      Unfortunately, the loss of critical thinking skills makes fixing the problem that much more difficult.

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!
    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @12:31AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @12:31AM (#596578)

      Anymore, education sucks!

      Anymore? It always did. Sorry, but there were no 'Good Old Days' when it comes to our school systems. They have always heavily promoted rote memorization over actual understanding of the material, mostly because that is easier to test for and even many of the teachers do not truly comprehend the subject matter they are supposed to teach. Math teachers should think like mathematicians, not like mere math users. Science teachers should think like scientists, not like mere science users. We teach people to mindlessly use things that already exist without encouraging them to think like innovators, which results in massive amounts of rote memorization that does little good in the long-term. This has always been the case, even if it hasn't always been to the same degree.

      You can't give kids a lot of homework, it pisses off the helicopter parents.

      We don't need one-size-fits-all solutions like this. What if some students can grasp the material much faster than others and do not need to do massive amounts of problems? Then it's just a waste of time. We need individualized learning. Not to mention, current homework assignments mostly require rote memorization so they're a waste of time in the first place.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Pino P on Monday November 13, @04:56PM (2 children)

    by Pino P (4721) on Monday November 13, @04:56PM (#596295) Journal

    Senator Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, has issued a press release about his having placed a hold on SESTA [senate.gov]. Techdirt compared this hold to a prior hold seven years ago by Sen. Wyden [techdirt.com] on the predecessor of SOPA and PROTECTIP.

    • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday November 13, @05:22PM (1 child)

      by Freeman (732) on Monday November 13, @05:22PM (#596318) Journal

      Yay! I think.

      --
      "I said in my haste, All men are liars." Psalm 116:11
      • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday November 14, @05:57AM

        by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday November 14, @05:57AM (#596674) Journal

        So now I need every Soylentil in the United States to do two things.

        1. Call one of your senators and say something to the effect: "Senator Wyden of Oregon has put a hold on SESTA, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, Senate bill 1693. I agree with the need to fight sexual servitude, but Senator Wyden's press release describes why SESTA is exactly the wrong approach to this. So I urge you to oppose this bill in anything resembling its current form."
        2. Repeat with your other senator.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:02PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:02PM (#596301)

    This is the first I've heard of this legislation, and my 15-second skimming of the bill (summary?) suggests it's just some superficial language changes. So what is the bill doing that's so bad?

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @06:27PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @06:27PM (#596358)

      > This is the first I've heard of this legislation

      You should really read more tech-related news. SESTA has been dissected and criticized for months.

      > So what is the bill doing that's so bad?

      There's like half a dozen links in the summary that elaborate on that :/

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @08:36PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @08:36PM (#596441)

        Apparently I haven't been keeping up the news and I've been living under a proverbial rock. So you could either spend 2 minutes and quickly explain the high-level bullet-points to somebody (who has and does call his Senators and Representatives with opinions, for the little good it does... albeit little is better than no good). Or you can tell me to RTFM and hope I spend the time to do the research.

        As a hint, I skimmed the EFF article in PDF linked before I posted this because they are usually fairly cogent, but this one didn't say anything which I found obviously bad, hence my posting.

        I guess I will be yet another uninformed sheep in this situation because I'm a busy person, my representative will not be informed of what a member of their constituency think, and we can all go back to ranting about how broken the American political system is. Yes, that works too.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by maxwell demon on Monday November 13, @07:49PM

      by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @07:49PM (#596407) Journal

      Well, what sounds like a simple edit can turn out as a major change.

      For example, imagine a law proposes the following changes to the Ninth Amendment:

      • After "be" add "."
      • Before "construed", add "They are"

      That's just some superficial language changes, right?

      Well, let's look at the text:

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      And here's what the above edits would make of it:

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be. They are construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      That would be a pretty big change, wouldn't it?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday November 13, @11:22PM

    by Mykl (1112) on Monday November 13, @11:22PM (#596545)

    It would seem to me that sites such as Literotica, Pornhub etc would be dead in the water for thousands of submissions that could be interpreted (probably wrongly) as encouraging sex trafficking. Imagine the shitstorm when Joe Public realizes that Congress has shut down his favorite bit of the internet?

  • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @11:56PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @11:56PM (#596553)

    The title of the bill is not what the bill is about

  • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Tuesday November 14, @04:16AM (1 child)

    by darkfeline (1030) on Tuesday November 14, @04:16AM (#596658) Homepage

    Holy fuck is that bill hard to read. Someone should really introduce legislators to diff; that would remove the need for so much legalese.

    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday November 14, @05:10AM

      by maxwell demon (1608) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 14, @05:10AM (#596666) Journal

      But if the bills were easy to read, those voting on them might understand them. And then they might not get passed the way the sponsors wants them.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @07:55PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14, @07:55PM (#596947)

    a whole page of bullshit and no decent explanation of the key points of this proposed legislation. what a joke. i have shitposting to do here people! no time for reading your nonsense!

(1)