6 ms·

Exactly 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 o

Exactly 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 ago
You 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 ago
    Oh, so there are already unreasonable applications of this law in court? Or are you merely guessing how things will progress?
    - srslack 9y ago
      What'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.
  - sp332 9y ago
    That's not what I'm talking about. I just didn't like AFnobody acting like everyone should have the same ideas they do.
    - AFNobody 9y ago
      Why? It is blindingly obvious to the EFF and anyone else who has dealt with politics. This is literally just to wrap it up for the rubes and to find a packaging that could pass. Craigslist, Patreon, Reddit, Youtube, etc. have all started self-censorship programs in response. Patreon did it last year when this looked like it wouldn't die. Pretending it was an unforeseen consequence when it began before the law even passed and was literally called out by multiple parties as the cause after it passed for the final holdouts? That is literally burying your head in the sand. I'm sorry but this is up there with denying the Earth is round when it comes to anyone who has dealt with these groups before. https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/sesta-anti-sex-trafficking-bill-fosta.html https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/sesta-anti-sex-trafficking-bi... It is literally cutting the lifelines that help sex workers avoid being abused.
noobermin 9y ago
The thing that gets me is how people who drafted and supported these bills probably did it with the best of intentions. Most people who support these laws want to help individuals who are sex workers. However, it seems none of them actually talked to any actual sex workers here and some are even actively ignoring their voices.
- colordrops 9y ago
  I think you aren't cynical enough. The US government is jealous of China's clampdown on unmoderated forums and some how just "stumbled" on the perfect alibi to do the same here.
  - noobermin 9y ago
    You might be right. In fact, the person who I'm replying to is saying it's their explicit goal. I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if for some of them it was. For those who tacked on the bill as well as some groups and celebrities (I think Amy Schumer and Seth Myers) some of them might have jumped on with the best of intentions.
    - colordrops 9y ago
      Fair enough, it's not a monolithic block of supporters. I do think though that the main drivers of the bill are authoritarian.
    - AFNobody 9y ago
      Correct. It is not a monolithic block of supporters and that is _precisely_ why they had to wrap it up as they did. The goal was to find a way to do this that would win enough popular support to pass. I fully expect all the non-professionals involved to be duped into supporting it. The politicians, the wealthy, and the lobbyists involved, however, wanted this exact response. They now have the tools to leverage any platform that allows UGC to obey since none of them can fully evade the "knowingly" standard if they have employees. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-... > While we can’t speculate on the agendas of the groups behind SESTA, we can study those same groups’ past advocacy work. Given that history, one could be forgiven for thinking that some of these groups see SESTA as a mere stepping stone to banning pornography from the Internet or blurring the legal distinctions between sex work and trafficking. The EFF basically called those groups out that are doing this out of social conservatism (rather than legitimate desire to render aid). They alone would not have been enough to push this bill through, just as they have repeatedly failed in the past. So they needed new wrapping paper and a group of friendly lobbyists who wanted a tool to lean on people with.
cirgue 9y ago
> "questionable" court cases until they find where the line is. Until this law actually gets tested in the courts, it is basically impossible to tell what the long-term impact will be. My suspicion is that Reddit et al want to do everything possible to keep a low profile while Facebook is occupying the spotlight. After that has run its course, I would bet there would be a challenge in some form, whether via PR or directly.
- AFNobody 9y ago
  https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/sesta-anti-sex-trafficking-bill-fosta.html https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/sesta-anti-sex-trafficking-bi... Please read that instead of pretending this is some academic debate that won't result in women being abused as a result. People will suffer long term consequences.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    I wish I lived in a world where the opinions of actual sex workers (and similar advocates) had the most sway regarding legislation intended to protect them. Though I am tempted to say nominally intended to protect them. In this case, I suspect that actually protecting them is not the goal. The actual goal appears to be expressing weird puritan guilt or something. Geez.
    - AFNobody 9y ago
      So do I. Sadly, we are not living in that world.
  - cirgue 9y ago
    > People will suffer long term consequences. I don't disagree. I also stand by my comment. Organizarions are acting out of an abundance of caution. That may persist or it may change depending on what happens when a company actually gets prosecuted under SESTA/FOSTA.
    - AFNobody 9y ago

sp332 9y ago

You 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 ago
  Oh, so there are already unreasonable applications of this law in court? Or are you merely guessing how things will progress?
  - srslack 9y ago
    What'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.
- sp332 9y ago
  That's not what I'm talking about. I just didn't like AFnobody acting like everyone should have the same ideas they do.
  - AFNobody 9y ago
    Why? It is blindingly obvious to the EFF and anyone else who has dealt with politics. This is literally just to wrap it up for the rubes and to find a packaging that could pass. Craigslist, Patreon, Reddit, Youtube, etc. have all started self-censorship programs in response. Patreon did it last year when this looked like it wouldn't die. Pretending it was an unforeseen consequence when it began before the law even passed and was literally called out by multiple parties as the cause after it passed for the final holdouts? That is literally burying your head in the sand. I'm sorry but this is up there with denying the Earth is round when it comes to anyone who has dealt with these groups before. https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/sesta-anti-sex-trafficking-bill-fosta.html https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/sesta-anti-sex-trafficking-bi... It is literally cutting the lifelines that help sex workers avoid being abused.

noobermin 9y ago

The thing that gets me is how people who drafted and supported these bills probably did it with the best of intentions. Most people who support these laws want to help individuals who are sex workers. However, it seems none of them actually talked to any actual sex workers here and some are even actively ignoring their voices.

colordrops 9y ago
I think you aren't cynical enough. The US government is jealous of China's clampdown on unmoderated forums and some how just "stumbled" on the perfect alibi to do the same here.
- noobermin 9y ago
  You might be right. In fact, the person who I'm replying to is saying it's their explicit goal. I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if for some of them it was. For those who tacked on the bill as well as some groups and celebrities (I think Amy Schumer and Seth Myers) some of them might have jumped on with the best of intentions.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    Fair enough, it's not a monolithic block of supporters. I do think though that the main drivers of the bill are authoritarian.
  - AFNobody 9y ago
    Correct. It is not a monolithic block of supporters and that is _precisely_ why they had to wrap it up as they did. The goal was to find a way to do this that would win enough popular support to pass. I fully expect all the non-professionals involved to be duped into supporting it. The politicians, the wealthy, and the lobbyists involved, however, wanted this exact response. They now have the tools to leverage any platform that allows UGC to obey since none of them can fully evade the "knowingly" standard if they have employees. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-... > While we can’t speculate on the agendas of the groups behind SESTA, we can study those same groups’ past advocacy work. Given that history, one could be forgiven for thinking that some of these groups see SESTA as a mere stepping stone to banning pornography from the Internet or blurring the legal distinctions between sex work and trafficking. The EFF basically called those groups out that are doing this out of social conservatism (rather than legitimate desire to render aid). They alone would not have been enough to push this bill through, just as they have repeatedly failed in the past. So they needed new wrapping paper and a group of friendly lobbyists who wanted a tool to lean on people with.

cirgue 9y ago

> "questionable" court cases until they find where the line is. Until this law actually gets tested in the courts, it is basically impossible to tell what the long-term impact will be. My suspicion is that Reddit et al want to do everything possible to keep a low profile while Facebook is occupying the spotlight. After that has run its course, I would bet there would be a challenge in some form, whether via PR or directly.

AFNobody 9y ago
https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/sesta-anti-sex-trafficking-bill-fosta.html https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/sesta-anti-sex-trafficking-bi... Please read that instead of pretending this is some academic debate that won't result in women being abused as a result. People will suffer long term consequences.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  I wish I lived in a world where the opinions of actual sex workers (and similar advocates) had the most sway regarding legislation intended to protect them. Though I am tempted to say nominally intended to protect them. In this case, I suspect that actually protecting them is not the goal. The actual goal appears to be expressing weird puritan guilt or something. Geez.
  - AFNobody 9y ago
    So do I. Sadly, we are not living in that world.
- cirgue 9y ago
  > People will suffer long term consequences. I don't disagree. I also stand by my comment. Organizarions are acting out of an abundance of caution. That may persist or it may change depending on what happens when a company actually gets prosecuted under SESTA/FOSTA.
  - AFNobody 9y ago