3 ms·

The standard is already a middle ground. Web companies can't just wash their hands of activity they know about.

will_brown 9y ago
Again, try applying your logic to the real world example I give. Take Uber in Florida. Many counties they operated (knowingly/willfully) illegally. They recruited drivers from counties where it was legal to counties it was illegal, paying bonuses to drivers to get them to comply. They ran software that would cancel rides if it determined: a. It was a LE operation; or b. The driver was working with LE. Uber created training materials to avoid LE in counties drivers were operating illegally and distributed them to said drivers (everything from have passengers sit up front, take your Uber phone down, etc...). Driver caught breaking the law more than twice are terminated. Millions in fines to drivers, cars impounded, drivers arrested and charged criminally...but nothing happened to Uber, how is that a middle ground?
- lobotryas 9y ago
  You are forgetting another important factor: not all laws are just or make sense in the current year. Less than a generation ago we had laws that oppressed black and gay people. I doubt you or anyone would defend these laws now just because they happened to have been ratified laws. Non government entities oppose or try to influence existing laws in many ways and for many reasons. Some examples are BLM, congressional lobbying, and what Uber has done. Uber's fight is, of course, strictly for their bottom line, but the general principle of non government entities making change through non legislative channels applies. Finally, you have to consider public opinion. Uber has had plenty of opposition, but I would say that, by and large, the public supports them because they provide a useful service. Your proposed "murder for hire platform" is both already illegal and would meet staunch public opposition. If SESTA passes we will not only potentially criminalize many software projects, but also make some markets impossible to enter without a sizable amount of cash (ex: web hosting).
  - will_brown 9y ago
    So in conclusion, in direction contrast to what you claim through the thread...There is no middle ground currently. 1 tech company can facilitate breaking the law; leave a wake of fines and criminal records of their contractors, and they aren't liable. And that's the status quo everyone seems to be accepting because god forbid a startup needs more cash to compete in order to comply with laws.
- gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago
  I have no specific knowledge about anything in Florida or anything to do with Uber and no way to check the accuracy of your accusations but may I ask if lack of action against service providers in such cases is because there were no laws to be broken or because decisions have been taken not to press charges or because more evidence is needed?

Again, try applying your logic to the real world example I give. Take Uber in Florida. Many counties they operated (knowingly/willfully) illegally. They recruited drivers from counties where it was legal to counties it was illegal, paying bonuses to drivers to get them to comply. They ran software that would cancel rides if it determined: a. It was a LE operation; or b. The driver was working with LE. Uber created training materials to avoid LE in counties drivers were operating illegally and distributed them to said drivers (everything from have passengers sit up front, take your Uber phone down, etc...). Driver caught breaking the law more than twice are terminated. Millions in fines to drivers, cars impounded, drivers arrested and charged criminally...but nothing happened to Uber, how is that a middle ground?

lobotryas 9y ago
You are forgetting another important factor: not all laws are just or make sense in the current year. Less than a generation ago we had laws that oppressed black and gay people. I doubt you or anyone would defend these laws now just because they happened to have been ratified laws. Non government entities oppose or try to influence existing laws in many ways and for many reasons. Some examples are BLM, congressional lobbying, and what Uber has done. Uber's fight is, of course, strictly for their bottom line, but the general principle of non government entities making change through non legislative channels applies. Finally, you have to consider public opinion. Uber has had plenty of opposition, but I would say that, by and large, the public supports them because they provide a useful service. Your proposed "murder for hire platform" is both already illegal and would meet staunch public opposition. If SESTA passes we will not only potentially criminalize many software projects, but also make some markets impossible to enter without a sizable amount of cash (ex: web hosting).
- will_brown 9y ago
  So in conclusion, in direction contrast to what you claim through the thread...There is no middle ground currently. 1 tech company can facilitate breaking the law; leave a wake of fines and criminal records of their contractors, and they aren't liable. And that's the status quo everyone seems to be accepting because god forbid a startup needs more cash to compete in order to comply with laws.
gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago
I have no specific knowledge about anything in Florida or anything to do with Uber and no way to check the accuracy of your accusations but may I ask if lack of action against service providers in such cases is because there were no laws to be broken or because decisions have been taken not to press charges or because more evidence is needed?