11 ms·
Post-SESTA/FOSTA Self-Censoring for Twitter, Reddit, and Other Social Media
- dEnigma 9y agoHere is an Internet Archive link, since the site seems to be down right now: https://web.archive.org/web/20180324231954/http://titsandsass.com/post-sesta-fosta-self-censoring-for-twitter-reddit-and-other-social-media/ https://web.archive.org/web/20180324231954/http://titsandsas...
- sp332 9y agoFor me, the cache was missing this screenshot of the message sent to mods of /r/SexWorkers: https://imgur.com/a/dxn04 https://imgur.com/a/dxn04
- dEnigma 9y agoThank you for the image! There are actually a lot of screenshots on the original page, as I know realize. Thankfully the site seems to have recovered more or less (still very slow to load here, but it does load eventually)
- colordrops 9y agoSpeaking of which, how long until the Internet Archive becomes a target due to illegal content? That's when the book burning allegories will start hitting close to home...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mirimir 9y agoIt already is a target. I recall that issues of Dabiq (ISIS' magazine) routinely disappeared.
- AFNobody 9y agoExactly as planned. The goal is creating chilling effects that create self-censorship to be reasonably sure you are safe. And this will begin a slippery slope of "questionable" court cases until they find where the line is. They just had to wrap it up in a noble cause, much like false patriots wrap themselves up in flags. Businesses selling any controlled good are now being censored "just to be safe" and try to avoid further legal pushes to add more things to the list. Can we stop pretending this wasn't the goal now?
- sp332 9y agoYou can say what you think plainly. You don't have to chide other people for not having the same ideas in their head that you have in yours.
- srslack 9y ago>You can say what you think plainly Clearly this isn't the case, since we're already seeing the chilling effects on platforms. The legislation is so intentionally vague for the benefit of prosecutors, and the very fact that it's ex-post facto (unconstitutional), you could certainly be forgiven for thinking that the sole intention was to produce a chilling effect, and those pushing it were intentionally dishonest.
- SiempreViernes 9y agoOh, so there are already unreasonable applications of this law in court? Or are you merely guessing how things will progress?
- srslack 9y agoWhat's happening right now in anticipation of the legislative package is the very definition of a chilling effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect Of course there haven't been any "unreasonable applications" of it at this point, it only just passed in the Senate several days ago.
- random4369 9y agoIt's sad how little progress we've made in terms of freedom of speech and expression. In the 1800s the church was the censorship machine, with sex as the main vector. Today it's the government, still with sex as the main vector.
- SiempreViernes 9y agoWhat are you talking about, black people can vote, gay people can marry, but there has hardly been any freedom of speech progress since 1800?
- klokoman 9y agoVoting is not speech. Also it's what you aren't allowed to say that changed.
- Afforess 9y agoThe US has made negative progress on sexual liberation on the whole of history. Prostitution was common and generally legal in the late 1700's and 1800's. The temperance movements in the late 1800's and early 1900's (yes, the same movement that caused the 18th amendment) led to the illegalization of sex work and other vices. America has not yet recovered from this criminalization, despite being one hundred years in the past.
- jonathanyc 9y agoAre you seriously saying that prostitution having become mostly illegal is a greater setback to sexual liberation than all the other advances we have made with regards to women’s rights? (For example, women being able to legally resist having sex with their husbands?)
- code_sloth 9y agoCan you read? Seriously?
- hueving 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- noam87 9y agoPerfect time to start moving (and contributing) to decentralized services. I've been following the development of https://beakerbrowser.com https://beakerbrowser.com and I really hope it captures wider attention. -- It's not just super user friendly already, it's actually easier to set up a Beaker website than one on the regular net (literally one click).
- greglindahl 9y agoDon't forget that Blumenthal pounded a bunch of nails into Usenet's coffin while he was Connecticut AG.
- cft 9y agoCan you provide some context?
- dredmorbius 9y agoI find this: https://www.cnet.com/news/state-attorneys-general-push-online-child-safety-snake-oil/ https://www.cnet.com/news/state-attorneys-general-push-onlin... Which suggests Andrew Cuomo had a bigger effect: https://www.cnet.com/news/n-y-attorney-general-forces-isps-to-curb-usenet-access/ https://www.cnet.com/news/n-y-attorney-general-forces-isps-t...
- wtfstatists 9y agoWhat are you going to do when decentralization/encryption/etc itself become illegal ?
- cft 9y agoSenator Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut), a cosponsor of the bill, derided Craigslist's announcement. “If Craigslist is really telling us that they can’t run a page on their website without knowingly facilitating sex trafficking, that would certainly be a damning admission,” he said in a statement https://www.wired.com/story/craigslist-shuts-personal-ads-for-fear-of-new-internet-law/ https://www.wired.com/story/craigslist-shuts-personal-ads-fo...
- zaroth 9y agoThat’s an absurd statement. First the conflation of sex trafficking and prostitution, and second, second the hazy definition of “facilitating”, third the shocking criminal penalties. Yeah, Craigslist was scared. And so are a lot of people. Laughing that off is what’s damning.
- chimeracoder 9y ago> If Craigslist is really telling us that they can’t run a page on their website without knowingly facilitating sex trafficking, that would certainly be a damning admission That's a really disingenuous statement, though I'd expect nothing less from a person who has everything to gain from making Craigslist look shady. The law very intentionally uses the word "knowingly", which has a lower legal bar than other considerations, like "intentionally". In this case, that means that even if Craigslist took active measures to prevent people from using Craigslist for sex work, they would still be liable for anybody who successfully circumvented their methods. Secondly, sex trafficking is not the same as sex work. The bill purports to target sex trafficking, but it really applies to sex work - that is, to consensual sexual activity in which money changes hands. Blumenthal, I should point out, has a long history of targeting Craigslist specifically, going back all the way to his days as AG. He failed to secure the case he wanted against them as AG, so he's going for a scorched earth approach now that he's in the Senate. For him, the Craigslist shutdown is a personal victory, and sticking it to Craigslist was honestly probably one of his motivations for cosponsoring the bill in the first place.
- propman 9y agoLike everyone knows, it's not that they can't, it's just no longer economical for them to do so. I dislike this linear thinking from our politicians and surprisingly it's often not for show or the media. Some of them truly believe that, but it's mostly in the House not the Senate. They've been trying to pass something like this for years and I remember reading about this back in the day and actually feeling neutral with the bill if they were able to do it the right way. Given the power of the internet giants I assumed that that would happen, but I guess not. This was awful implementation. There is a bright side. Now within the new law, this gives a small business a good opportunity to create something similar while testing the legal grounds. If you try hard to prevent all sex trafficking/illegal activity, will the law bend and allow some leeway? Now that many sites are exiting the personals market, it's a good time to try. The advantages these sites had were not due to UI or tech features, but due to wide adaptability so this means it could be a free for all and one business could create a vastly greater user experience because those sites had no reason to innovate. Do I have the guts to do it? No way. The penalties are too scary and any prosecuter trying to make a name for themselves could destroy anyone's reputation and life.
- zaroth 9y agoYou can see already the huge failure of this policy, before it has even become law. The clearly unconstitutional aspects of the law, and the chilling effect is tremendous. The wrong thing to do is to run and hide. The best response is to find ways to weaponize the law against more powerful groups to create a backlash.
- cctt23 9y agoWait to judge on running and hiding until the inevitable cases reach the Supreme Court. Congress can pass any law, but that doesn’t mean it will stand.
- wereHamster 9y agoIt's the internet. Why is it so hard to move your website to a different jurisdiction?
- m1el 9y agoDoes FOSTA apply to VPS providers? Do VPS providers have to be wary of what sort of tenants they host? Edit: What if I rent a VPS and host a porn site?
- venatiodecorus 9y agoI'm pretty sure that was already against lots of TOS, and if it was illegal porn....already illegal.
- zerostar07 9y agoI can't think of a better gift to truly-uncensorable platforms.
- huffmsa 9y agoYeah, let's outlaw public, centralized, easy to track and target forms of communication about sex work! If we don't let people talk about it where we can see it, it must mean people aren't doing it! No way they'll just move to loosely structured, encrypted p2p networks. "Sponsored by Senators Portman, Blumenthal, McCain, McCaskill, Cornyn, and Heitkamp" Luddites.
- merinowool 9y agoDo I understand correctly, the land of the free has appointed a bunch of authoritarians who push for censorship like in the peak of communism, the very thing America tried to fight for years? How is that not a treason? Why those people are not locked up?
- acobster 9y agoMoney.
- cf498 9y agoIs there a list of lobby or non lobby groups who pushed for SESTA/FOSTA?