New law aims to curb the sex trade threatens the future of the Internet as we know it
A controversial bill package FOSTA-SESTA have already affected on sites like reddit, Craigslist, and Google — and this is only the beginning.
At
Aja Romano@ajaromano
April 13, 2018,, 10:10 am Eastern time
Share
Tweet
Share
Share
New law aims to curb the sex trade threatens the future of the Internet as we know it
tweet
share
In flipboard
I wonder why lately Craigslist killed him (in)famous section of “Dating”? You can thank Congress and start preparing for more of the deletions and censorship to come.
This week, President trump signed the law a number of controversial bills intended to make it easier to cut illegal sex trafficking online. Both bills — the bill house known as FOSTA fight online sex trafficking Law, and a Senate bill, SISTER, stop enabling the sex trafficking act was proclaimed advocates as a victory for victims of sex trafficking.
But accounts are also to poke a huge hole in the well-known and long-standing “safe Harbor” rule of the Internet: section 230 of the 1996 Law on keeping up appearances. Usually in minority and under “230” and generally regarded as one of the most important pieces of Internet legislation ever created, he believes that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service cannot be treated as the publisher or author of any information provided by another information content provider.” In other words, section 230 has allowed the Internet to thrive on user generated content without the platforms and providers responsible for all that these users can create.
But FOSTA-SESTA creates an exception to article 230 this means that the publishers will be held responsible if third parties are posting ads for prostitution, including sex work on their platforms. The purpose of this assumes that police online prostitution becomes easier. What FOSTA-SISTER was actually performed, however, it will create confusion and immediate repercussions among a number of Internet sites as they battle with a stunning ruling language.
SESTA immediately after passage on March 21, 2018, numerous websites took the decision to censor or ban a part of their platforms in response — not because these pieces actually were sites advertising prostitutes, but because the police them against the hypothetical possibility that they might have been too hard.
All this does not Bode well for the Internet in General. In the end, as many opponents of the bill noted, the law seems to be not doing anything specific to target illicit sex directly, but instead threatens “the increase of violence against the most vulnerable groups of the population.” But it makes it a lot easier to censor freedom of speech on smaller sites — as evidenced by the immediate effects of the law via the Internet.
What FOSTA-SESTA set out to do: to curb online sex
FOSTA and SISTER began their life as two different bills designed to combat human trafficking, sex Dating sites — in particular, Backpage.com.
The cover has long been known for its advertising for sex workers (although they were formally removed from the site last year). It’s also seen numerous scandals related to illegal sex work; the authorities arrested the individuals who use it to pay for sex, and the cover helped law enforcement authorities in the investigation of the ads on your website. In the past, the authorities demolished similar websites with targeted raids.
But previous attempts by the authorities to hold the cover liability for illegal content on its website not because of section 230 is dictum that the sites are not responsible for the Content posted by users. This trend reached its peak in December 2016 for the dismissal of the claim intended for backpage to advertise on their sites. The presiding judge clearly stated section 230 In its decision of resignation.
Immediately after this dismissal, however, the tide quickly turned against the cover. In January 2017, and the investigation in the Senate, ultimately, found the cover to be complicit in sequencers for child trafficking. A month later, a documentary about the survivors call me Jane DOE is focused on the cover, considering that the reliable provision of harbour for the protection of the cover from responsibility for advertising on their websites should be done.
Congress listened. FOSTA and SESTA was created last year in response to negative reaction, in particular naming the cover in order to ensure future lawsuits, fired in 2016 could move forward.
This step immediately provoked skepticism from the legal community. Noted law Professor and blogger Eric Goldman wrote of the creation of SESTA that “the bill does not expose Internet entrepreneurs additional unclear criminal risk, and that would be to chill socially useful entrepreneurial activity outside the target zone bill.” He also noted that existing criminal laws already do most of what FOSTA-SESTA is designed to do — the argument is bolstered by the fact that as recently as this month, the cover still has problems with the law in the framework of existing laws, which are exempt from 230 protection.
What FOSTA-SESTA probably will not make sex workers safer
Supporters of the bill framed FOSTA and SISTER as the main tools that will allow officials of the police sites and allowing victims of sex trafficking to sue on those sites, to ease their suffering. This disingenuous image, however, because it does not account for the ways the Internet makes it easier for sex workers to perform their work safely, at the same time makes it easier for law enforcement to document and obtain evidence of illegal activities.
There is a lot of evidence as anecdotal and researched that give sex workers a way to advertise, vet, and select clients online makes them much safer than they are without the online system. When they were herded into the streets to find customers, workers, sex workers have less precautions in place, the ability to effectively pre-screening of clients, and there is no way to make sure that they are working in safe places.
The bill also incorporates consensual sex work consensual sex work, doing nothing to distinguish between the different types of sex work and other similar materials, even if the workers and all content legally protected by local legislation. In Nevada, where prostitution is legal in some areas of the state, the sex business has been mounting for FOSTA-SESTA. And one sex worker Nevada recently accused the bill for a new local referendum, which is trying to close an adult brothels.
It is important to note that does not distinguish between consensual and consensual sex work is part of an international legal standard set out in the 2000 Protocol of the United Nations. This Protocol was subsequently set out in the following 2014, the issues of consent and argued that “consent is not relevant to determining whether a crime of trafficking has occurred.”
However, workers sex workers argue vociferously that regardless of legal precedent, this merger makes consensual and consensual sex workers less safe. Melissa Mariposa, who responded to the score by creating an offshore location, the sex worker-friendly provider, the risks described in the daily dot:
There are also many studies indicating that the ability of officials will help to work more effectively. In 2016 the us state Department report found that because of the transparency provided by the cover and similar sites, the number of identified victims of human trafficking and the sex has grown in seven years from less than 31,000 to nearly 78 000.
Of identifying the perpetrators, however, remains difficult. The reality is that the authorities had very little success effective prosecution of traffickers under the existing criminal law. In 2014, according to the same report, a total of 392 sex crimes investigation led to the prosecution of 105 defendants for trafficking in sex. Of the 105 cases, the court has sentenced 79 offenders, but only 19 of them are in jail, with a sentence of two to 10 years. These lenient sentences was largely due to leniency for a first offense.
These statistics show how difficult it is to effectively engage in the sex trade at the individual level. The solution proposed FOSTA-SISTER, therefore, to attack websites that facilitate trade, despite the fact that they may also make it easier for authorities to track down criminals, not empower the law to more effectively prosecute sex traffickers themselves.
All of this explains why a coalition of sex workers business, attorneys, victims of sex trafficking, and even the Ministry of justice strongly objected to the idea that FOSTA-SISTER is an effective deterrent to the sex trade.
The bill may, not helps at least one class of sex workers: adults who want to do their job consistently and safely. And if we consider the increased transparency around sex work that will be lost when sites like backpage is not closed, it is also arguable that forced victims of sex trafficking will become less visible and more vulnerable, being pushed away from the visible part of the web pages in the deep web and the dark corners of real life. Overall, FOSTA-SESTA ready to put some vulnerable groups are at much higher risk.
Despite this, the Congress overwhelmingly voted to pass both bills into law that may have more in common with the high torque of counteraction of the technical culture and its recent “breach of trust and moral obligation,” as SISTER co-sponsored by Senator Richard Blumenthal put it, and not a specific goal of these bills.
Again, the final versions of both bills is far more radical than they were originally intended to be.
What FOSTA-SESTA actually: Rip a giant hole in governing the Internet
For two decades, the network acted in accordance with article 230 of the communications act of 1996 of decency. Because section 230, the courts have a clear basis for assessing freedom of expression on the Internet. And, most importantly, because section 230, the owners of web sites and server nodes are not constantly mired in endless lawsuits, because someone said something sensational on one of my sites.
Without this clause, which exempts websites from liability for the actions of their users, most web sites simply could not exist. They’ll have to fend off potential lawsuits due to the unpredictable behavior of its users, devoting endless resources to moderate everything their users do, just the prohibition of the activities of users in General, and throwing millions of dollars on legal fees. The vast majority of the Internet as we know it — everything except a few sites run by tech companies with huge resources that may not have reached this status Without the protection of section 230 — x – would be unable to function under such pressure.
Enter FOSTA-SISTER, which create the strength of the loopholes in the sites if they appear to be allowing the advertisement of prostitution. Sounds specific, but it’s not.
FOSTA, the bill it was originally adopted in February to the house, was originally created to focus solely on sites like backpage — that is, sites that seemed intended only to give a place for sex workers. But when she brought it into the house, the bill has acquired a broader, strong provisions adopted from the Senate version of the bill, SESTA, the provisions included all of the sites. Then turned into a combo score, which ends at the head with President trump’s Desk for signature. Eff called it “a bad bill turned into worse bill, and then rushed through votes in both houses of Congress.”
Instead of focusing specifically on web sites known to facilitate the sex trade, production-SESTA hybrid, in fact, sets the template for the “widespread censorship” on the Internet. This means that sites must decide whether overpolice platforms for potential advertising prostitution or underpolice them so they can maintain the dummy position, which is likely to be very difficult claim to prove in court.
The bill’s language penalizes websites that “encourage or promote prostitution” and allows the authorities to prosecute the sites for “knowingly assisting, promoting or supporting sex trafficking”, which is vague enough to threaten the whole, some cryptocurrencies porn video sites for perfectly legal Escort services. (In fact, one of the main supporters of the bill, the national center on sexual exploitation, it is possible to use promissory notes as a way to attack a consistent adult pornography, which he described as “violent“, “degrading” and “health crisis.”)
None of this really interferes with the sex ads are created or published, it just puts the onus on site owners to self-control. The provisions of SESTA allow legal action against any website found to be “knowingly aiding, supporting, or facilitating” advertising for sex work. This means that everyone, from Twitter to eBay for motorcycle and trading uncle the forum.
As expected, the passage of the bill left many web sites trying to figure out how to configure.
FOSTA-SESTA side effects: sites under pressure to remove Content, whether it has something to do with sex
Two days after the passage of SESTA in the Senate, Craigslist removed the entire section “acquaintance” with his platform, citing the complexity of compliance with new changes in the law if it continued to allow open posting on his section of Dating. Step left users craigslist to interview one another on alternative Dating sites, and sent in the category “activity” with a wink-wink queries on “classes.”
Another trusted escort service, Cityvibe — tacitly held a sex workers ‘ advertising under the guise of legal services like escort & massage — closed, just like it is reported, without a refund for prostitutes who were posting ads there.
Furry-focused Dating site Pounced.org was another victim of bill combo. When it was closed for the night a week after SISTER passed, the site left a lengthy note explaining that the specific language in the undermined section FOSTA 230 thus, “the sites operated small businesses, as pounced.org it is much riskier to work with.”
“We do not promote prostitution or sex trafficking,” the moderator of the site wrote. “We are a Dating site for the furry community. … The problem with limited resources and staff, a small volunteer our risk for operating site has now increased significantly.”
Furthermore, reddit has banned several subreddits in response, including p/SK, p/maleescorts, R/hookers and R/SugarDaddy. Users on other forums such as R/SexWorkers, was rapidly revising and re-formulate their rules in order to keep their own community safe from repression. Meanwhile, workers sex workers who rely on jobs coming from different sites, remained faced with a complex list of precautions that should be followed in order to continue to try to calm their business in the shadow of the new law.
The motherboard also reported that as a result of passing SESTA, and Google began viewing and deleting content directly from disk account multiple users. Although the tech giant has a long-standing policy with respect to hide sexually explicit images and videos on cloud storage providers seem to have started actively sweep their accounts of the user in response to the bill.
Similarly, at the end of March, Microsoft unexpectedly announced a drastic change in its policies and enforcement of this policy, which effectively searched his many services, including Skype and cloud storage products, any adult content. This caused complaints from Skype users, who feared that the auto-detection of Microsoft filters will ban any Skype user who happened to participate in sexual activity with the use of the platform.
It should go without saying that it is possible the possession of pornographic materials without a connection to prostitution. But, again, vague wording of the bill means that the only choice for most web sites with regard to their approach to police user-generated content lies between strategic inaction or predominant reaction. In cases like Google and craigslist, pre-emptive response seems to be the most preferred model. While neither Google nor Microsoft is clearly related to his sudden censorship and the application of policies to the passage of the bill, time was hard to ignore.
What FOSTA-SESTA may lead to further erosion of Internet protection safe Harbor
Defenders of Internet freedom argued strongly against FOSTA-SESTA. One of the biggest fears around the bill combo is that it can create room for more bills that are trying to create still more exceptions in article 230.
This is not alarmist cry; in recent years, prosecutors and the plaintiffs were gunning hard section 230, and the courts responded strikingly large number of decisions in which they found that safe protection of the harbour not to apply in specific cases. This trend has given rise to concerns that the basic law protecting the Internet as we know it, is under attack.
Lawyers and advocates of the Internet strongly opposed “any law that changes the structure established in section 230”. We have seen that the weakening of any part thereof with immediate self-censorship and pre-emptive removal on several sites — and it’s up to lawsuits even entered the picture. Without section 230 protections, the sites would essentially be forced to hedge resources from unforeseen lawsuits, based on the unpredictable actions of their users.
The vast majority of the infrastructure of the Internet consists of sites and platforms that do not have the resources to handle this responsibility. These sites, or parts of them, were simply closed for the night, as we have seen, with personals sections of Craigslist, or presumably from the many places where users can interact and have a voice.
“This bill jeopardizes not only the ads but also apps for Dating, forums, social networks and any other service that hosts user-generated content,” says Emma Llansó center for democracy and technology in a public speech against the bill. “Fewer platforms will also face a real danger that in one trial could put them out of business.”
There is ample historical precedent for this argument, because that’s why section 230 was created to begin with. In Zeran V. America online, Inc., the first major Federal court to discuss section 230, the court’s decision, it became clear that there is an urgent need to protect sites from “burdens” endless legal threats:
That is why many activists and supporters of Internet freedom, accused FOSTA-set, threatening freedom of speech. As in section 230, making it more susceptible to exclusion will have the entire item useless as a management tool.
FOSTA who-SESTA can actually help corporate giants who want more control over the Internet, indomitable space
There is one group that does benefit a substantial amount from this package, bill: network corporate giants ranging from Hollywood studios to silicon valley giants.
Prior to the passage of SESTA in the Senate, a parade of celebrities, including Amy Schumer and Seth Meyers filmed a PSA to promote it as a tool to combat trafficking in sex. Disney has thrown its weight behind SESTA in a letter to lawmakers in support of the bill, and 20th century Fox followed suit. But while many well-intentioned people sincerely wanted to stop sex trafficking, and the name of the bill suggests reasons for the use of corporate entities that chose bill more suspect.
PF claims that the reason Hollywood studios are interested in FOSTA-SESTA is that it provides a Foundation for industry Institute censorship and filtering in relation to the speech of the user. The purpose of this would be to simultaneously deal with any potential threat of copyright, namely the use of automated copyright bots, while drawing the user’s innovation and creativity through channels that are managed and controlled by existing companies.
In other words, the long-term goal will be to seal the Wild West of the Internet by dividing the former free speech zones in areas controlled by the monetized, corporate bodies system, which will also contribute to monopolization and unfair competition from the giants of industry for a small Internet start-UPS. Tech giant Oracle has supported SESTA in a letter, expressing the idea that any new startup can get access to “virtually unlimited” technology and argued that a good technology company is All about monetizing the data and user base targeting not “blindly run[ning] platform with no control over the content.”
It is important to note that at one point, tech giants like Facebook and Amazon have been lobbying against FOSTA-SESTA via interest group of the Internet Association. But in the last months before the bills went to vote, they retreated, the transition from opposition to support after SESTA was changed to focus on platforms that provide “knowing assistance” for trade.
Like their strange, glaring silence in the face of renewed attacks on net neutrality, many technology leaders seem willing to compromise on issues that ultimately Deplete their much smaller cohorts in the Internet. Small Dating sites, Craiglist, reddit, and user-oriented non-profit Wikipedia (which vehemently opposes the bill package) was given to understand that they can’t afford to suffer long-term consequences of FOSTA-SESTA — at least without a radical overhaul of their websites and how these sites work.
But if FOSTA-SESTA overturned, either by court decisions or by new legislative authority from Congress, which, it seems, is not expected that these smaller sites may not have a choice. Whether section 230 ultimately weakened in General because of FOSTA-SISTER, it seems clear that we are in a time when many of the freedoms and protections we previously thought were woven into the fabric of the web systematically unraveled, call, and override the powerful special interest groups. If it continues to happen without a fight or opposition, we inevitably will be faced with a completely different, much less democratic version of the Internet.
And as a direct change in the network infrastructure resulted FOSTA-SESTA instructions, all this can happen faster than we think.
Sourse: vox.com
