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 w

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.