5 ms·

I just read the text of this bill. The way it reads, the entire online dating industry should be closing its doors...tonight. CEOs of these companies face pena

I just read the text of this bill. The way it reads, the entire online dating industry should be closing its doors...tonight. CEOs of these companies face penalties of up to 25 years in prison. Why were there not massive protests over this? I had never heard of this bill before today.

confounded 9y ago
I recommend that you subscribe to the blog of the EFF, and perhaps consider membership. They’ve been following this law in it’s various guises for quite some time, and providing tools for concerned citizens to contact their representatives effectively. Here’s some analysis of the proposals from October 2017: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/sex-trafficking-experts-say-sesta-wrong-solution https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/sex-trafficking-expert...
- downandout 9y ago
  I’ll definitely subscribe and pay more attention to these issues. Thanks for the link!
narrator 9y ago
Meanwhile, net neutrality, which wasn't even policy until the Obama administration gets huge press all over the place. What happened to Silicon Valley's political activism?
- SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
  Good question... almost like they might not be telling you the truth when the say they are riled up about X because of Y. The silence on Z is deafening.
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  NN rules predate the Obama administration in various forms.
SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
>I had never heard of this bill before today. Who was going to tell you about it? Time, NYT, CNN, WaPo? Nope.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- adventured 9y ago
  Oh they told you about it, they were favorable to it: [Feb 14 2018] "Don’t Let Criminals Hide Their Data Overseas" https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/14/opinion/data-overseas-legislation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/14/opinion/data-overseas-leg... [Mar 5 2018] "A promising solution is the Cloud (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data) Act, introduced by a bipartisan coalition in the Senate last month." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-global-game-of-whack-a-mole-overseas-data-rules-are-stuck-in-the-19th-century/2018/03/05/f24851e6-2096-11e8-86f6-54bfff693d2b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-global-game-of-wha...
  - jacques_chester 9y ago
    Both of these are opinion page pieces. Newspapers publish a wide variety of these without endorsing the position.
    - rnnr 9y ago
      they still pick the opinions they publish.
      - jacques_chester 9y ago
        Because atoms are in limited supply. It does not mean endorsement.
  - sah2ed 9y ago
    In fairness, your links are opinion pieces not staff reporting.
omarforgotpwd 9y ago
because the bill was introduced and passed in under 24 hours!
anigbrowl 9y ago
Nobody listens to sex workers.
- downandout 9y ago
  Possibly, but this is so broadly written that it reaches far beyond sex workers to the executives of massive enterprises - who usually are listened to. It essentially says that if you own any website and don't do enough to prevent prostitution from occurring through it, you go to prison for 10 years if there were 1-4 prostitutes on the site, and 25 years if there were 5 or more prostitutes on the site. Additionally, people "injured" by the offense can seek civil damages and attorneys fees. That presumably includes the sex workers themselves, if they claim they were forced to be on there by someone else. Executives at Tinder, POF, Match.com, etc. should be shaking in their boots right now. Even Facebook and other social networks could have civil and criminal exposure under this law.
dilap 9y ago
it'll be selectively enforced; small players will be pushed out because they can't afford the liability, and the behemoths will use their weight to ensure nothing happens to them.
- 77pt77 9y ago
  > it'll be selectively enforced This is the crux. These laws are not meant to be enforced universally. The objective is having ammunition to use when other motives determine the target to strike.

confounded 9y ago

I recommend that you subscribe to the blog of the EFF, and perhaps consider membership. They’ve been following this law in it’s various guises for quite some time, and providing tools for concerned citizens to contact their representatives effectively. Here’s some analysis of the proposals from October 2017: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/sex-trafficking-experts-say-sesta-wrong-solution https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/sex-trafficking-expert...

downandout 9y ago
I’ll definitely subscribe and pay more attention to these issues. Thanks for the link!

narrator 9y ago

Meanwhile, net neutrality, which wasn't even policy until the Obama administration gets huge press all over the place. What happened to Silicon Valley's political activism?

SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
Good question... almost like they might not be telling you the truth when the say they are riled up about X because of Y. The silence on Z is deafening.
jimktrains2 9y ago
NN rules predate the Obama administration in various forms.

SlowRobotAhead 9y ago

>I had never heard of this bill before today. Who was going to tell you about it? Time, NYT, CNN, WaPo? Nope.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
adventured 9y ago
Oh they told you about it, they were favorable to it: [Feb 14 2018] "Don’t Let Criminals Hide Their Data Overseas" https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/14/opinion/data-overseas-legislation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/14/opinion/data-overseas-leg... [Mar 5 2018] "A promising solution is the Cloud (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data) Act, introduced by a bipartisan coalition in the Senate last month." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-global-game-of-whack-a-mole-overseas-data-rules-are-stuck-in-the-19th-century/2018/03/05/f24851e6-2096-11e8-86f6-54bfff693d2b_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-global-game-of-wha...
- jacques_chester 9y ago
  Both of these are opinion page pieces. Newspapers publish a wide variety of these without endorsing the position.
  - rnnr 9y ago
    they still pick the opinions they publish.
    - jacques_chester 9y ago
      Because atoms are in limited supply. It does not mean endorsement.
- sah2ed 9y ago
  In fairness, your links are opinion pieces not staff reporting.

omarforgotpwd 9y ago

because the bill was introduced and passed in under 24 hours!

anigbrowl 9y ago

Nobody listens to sex workers.

downandout 9y ago
Possibly, but this is so broadly written that it reaches far beyond sex workers to the executives of massive enterprises - who usually are listened to. It essentially says that if you own any website and don't do enough to prevent prostitution from occurring through it, you go to prison for 10 years if there were 1-4 prostitutes on the site, and 25 years if there were 5 or more prostitutes on the site. Additionally, people "injured" by the offense can seek civil damages and attorneys fees. That presumably includes the sex workers themselves, if they claim they were forced to be on there by someone else. Executives at Tinder, POF, Match.com, etc. should be shaking in their boots right now. Even Facebook and other social networks could have civil and criminal exposure under this law.

dilap 9y ago

it'll be selectively enforced; small players will be pushed out because they can't afford the liability, and the behemoths will use their weight to ensure nothing happens to them.

77pt77 9y ago
> it'll be selectively enforced This is the crux. These laws are not meant to be enforced universally. The objective is having ammunition to use when other motives determine the target to strike.