4 ms·
This is a rough one, because the intent is genuinely good, but - as usual - the implementation is very poor. That always makes it extremely difficult to talk a
by Fellshard 9y ago
This is a rough one, because the intent is genuinely good, but - as usual - the implementation is very poor. That always makes it extremely difficult to talk about reasonably with most people.
- zaroth 9y agoI’d say it’s very much up for debate whether the intent was “genuinely good”. When Congress writes a law which includes ex post facto criminal liability, I don’t care if they claim it’s for the children, it’s foul play and can no longer be considered good intentioned.
- mmirate 9y agoThe implementation is poor in precisely such a way that it is a powerful tool waiting to be abused out of caprice or favoritism.
- Teknoman117 9y agoI doubt that the intent was good at all. Various companies have been trying to get legislation to let them go after (with legal action) websites holding or referencing "illicit online content" (not necessarily sexual in nature) even when such content is user generated. This is just another evolution of SOPA and PIPA carefully given a name that would make fighting it political suicide. It's a fairly common tactic. Even the organizations trying to fight online predation say that at best, SESTA won't do anything to help and more likely than not will hinder their efforts.