4 ms·
On the one hand, they're probably not going to be seriously held accountable for supporting sex trafficking. Best case, the CEO gets uprooted, or they get a men
by peterwwillis 8y ago
On the one hand, they're probably not going to be seriously held accountable for supporting sex trafficking. Best case, the CEO gets uprooted, or they get a menial fine. Legislation to support bigger consequences would be great.
On the other hand, SESTA/FOSTA has had a chilling effect on any sexuality on any platform in the US. There's Facebook events for burlesque shows that are being removed by Facebook because the word "sexy" is included in the description. And non-profits that try to promote safer sex, support people in abusive relationships, etc are removed from social media or have their websites revoked because they have "sex" in the title.
Where's the middle ground? How can we create consequences for companies that act unethically without them then banishing all sex-related content?
- guitarbill 8y agoBy not making laws based on moral outrage but pragmatism. In countries where sex work/drugs/etc are legal - or at least decriminalised - it isn't necessarily done because the majority feel this is the right thing to do, but because of harm reduction after consulting with experts in the field. Similarly, if you want less dead schoolchildren, this one weird trick of highly regulating firearms seems to work. Also, there are other legal avenues, see OJ Simpson's criminal vs civil trials (edit: this trial is a civil one. Not everything that is wrong has to be a crime to be punished, and not every court system has to work by the letter of the law like the US does.
- sethaurus 8y agoThe middle ground is to draw a clear distinction, both socially and legally, between sex and abuse. The criminalization of prostitution only muddies this line, and FOSTA-SESTA has served to marginalize and endanger both sex workers and sex-adjacent industries.