3 ms·

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

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.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > I fully expect all the non-professionals involved to be duped into supporting it It's also not a coincidence that this passed right after Facebook shat on, at least temporarily, tech companies' influence in D.C. One takeaway is we need a broader base who will fight for digital freedoms than big tech companies. Betting on a single point of failure is a losing political strategy.
      - AFNobody 9y ago
        Correct. Them being shat on (along with others) was timed to disrupt their influence.
syshum 9y ago
No they did not support it with the Best of Intentions... I quote the EFF "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." https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-... I 100% agree with the EFF analysis of the motivations. This is the first battle in a bigger war over free speech, Free Speech has lost this battle, I hope we do not lose the war
- erric 9y ago
  Sadly, it’s already been lost.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    Not yet. Fuck the US government, and Fuck Donald Trump. See? That wouldn't fly in a lot of countries. We are still mostly free. We need to gain back lost freedoms, and continue to defend the ones we've got.
GVIrish 9y ago
Some of the worst laws are made with good intentions. But people who fervently believe in a good cause often neglect to consider negative side effects in their quest to "do good" and can sometimes be actively hostile to anyone asking questions about said side effects. Often righteous creates a sort of blindness.

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.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > I fully expect all the non-professionals involved to be duped into supporting it It's also not a coincidence that this passed right after Facebook shat on, at least temporarily, tech companies' influence in D.C. One takeaway is we need a broader base who will fight for digital freedoms than big tech companies. Betting on a single point of failure is a losing political strategy.
    - AFNobody 9y ago
      Correct. Them being shat on (along with others) was timed to disrupt their influence.

syshum 9y ago

No they did not support it with the Best of Intentions... I quote the EFF "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." https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-... I 100% agree with the EFF analysis of the motivations. This is the first battle in a bigger war over free speech, Free Speech has lost this battle, I hope we do not lose the war

erric 9y ago
Sadly, it’s already been lost.
- colordrops 9y ago
  Not yet. Fuck the US government, and Fuck Donald Trump. See? That wouldn't fly in a lot of countries. We are still mostly free. We need to gain back lost freedoms, and continue to defend the ones we've got.

GVIrish 9y ago

Some of the worst laws are made with good intentions. But people who fervently believe in a good cause often neglect to consider negative side effects in their quest to "do good" and can sometimes be actively hostile to anyone asking questions about said side effects. Often righteous creates a sort of blindness.