4 ms·
This is a rather wild conspiracy theory. Note that the lobbyist in question no longer works for News Corp. Lobbyists are basically defined as “opinion for money
by IAmEveryone 9y ago
This is a rather wild conspiracy theory. Note that the lobbyist in question no longer works for News Corp. Lobbyists are basically defined as “opinion for money”, so the reverse should also be true: when you no longer pay them, it’s unlikely they’ll continue to work for you.
The connection becomes even more tenuous when you realize that News Corp isn’t actually “Hollywood”. Yes, they used to own 21th Century Fox, but that was sold last year.
Instead of trying to find some sinister motivation underlying people’s actions, it may be more useful to actually listen to them. It seems entirely believable that people privy to the details of human trafficking and sexual exploitation develop rather strong opinions on the subject. That conviction may lead them to advocating policies you may disagree with, especially when they see companies turning a blind eye to obvious underage sex trafficking on their platforms.
So do engage with their arguments and make a better case. But don’t belittle their concerns with hamfisted conspiracy theories.
- arbie 9y agoWhat about Disney's support?
- cornholio 9y ago> obvious underage sex trafficking on their platforms. Where and how does this happen? Do you have data? Can you cite a single instance of a pedophile ring was using open platforms in an "obvious" fashion to promote their product - as opposed to darknet/secret forums that don't care about SESTA? In the unlikely cases where it does happen, how do you think the majority of sex-service consumers would react to being offered underage sex? This seems to be a classic example of using a fringe issue - online pedophiles - to justify a major encroachment against civil liberties. In this case driven by a puritanical position that in fact wants to declare war against all forms of prostitution. With the only practical effect of waging war against the prostitutes themselves by denying them access to online platforms and pushing them straight into the hands of organized human trafficking rings. The consumers will not stop demanding sex services and they will get them somehow. Here what sexworkers themselves have to say about it: http://www.new.swopusa.org/2018/03/02/house-passing-of-misleading-fosta-bill-causes-country-wide-outrage/ http://www.new.swopusa.org/2018/03/02/house-passing-of-misle...
- IAmEveryone 9y ago"Backpage" was the name I believe. The was plenty of evidence of their collaboration, including the rewording of ads to make it less obvious how young, exactly, the girls on offer were. Note that even though my comment above received the full ire of HN, I do not necessarily support this legislation. I just think the article's game of 7-degrees-of-seperation and guilt by association are fundamentally weak arguments.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- meri_dian 9y agoHN loves its conspiracy theories. It's filled with people that are of above average intelligence and like to think to themselves they've "figured it all out" and are able to peel back the curtain to see what's"really going on". Also prominent on HN is a strong dislike of institutions, perhaps because people here tend to be a little different from the majority of people and so have an innate outsider mentality, leading them to mistrust of the status quo. So they are continually trying to find ways to pin malicious intent on institutions. They are primed to expect conspirational thinking so they see it even when the reality is not so sinister.
- ShabbosGoy 9y agoConspiracy theories like what? Mass surveillance of Americans?
- meri_dian 9y agoBasically just assuming the worst intentions of most institutions large and small.