5 ms·

You can’t kill the oldest profession in the world. It will never happen. You know what FOSTA/SESTA did? Push it deeper underground.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
Specifically it made sex trafficking victims harder to rescue, by eliminating the means that LEO used to find them. Evidence indicates that lawmakers don't care about victims in a meaningfully helpful way. They absolutely crave the power/cash that anti-trafficking rhetoric brings. A competent press would examine the history of trafficking laws and report the actual outcomes - instead of parroting the PR that pols hand to them.
- otterley 5y ago
  What evidence can you point to? Genuinely curious, not shitposting.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    Here's a start. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180705/01033440176/more-police-admitting-that-fosta-sesta-has-made-it-much-more-difficult-to-catch-pimps-traffickers.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180705/01033440176/more-...
    - otterley 5y ago
      I was specifically referring to your claim that “lawmakers don't care about victims in a meaningfully helpful way. They absolutely crave the power/cash that anti-trafficking rhetoric brings.” This article says nothing about that, and TechDirt isn’t exactly a reputable, well-researched newsgathering organization. Sure, they’re great at pointing out hypocrisies and weaknesses for our amusement, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen them do any in-depth analysis or reporting.
      - wonnage 5y ago
        This reply is basically a shitpost. You asked for a source and got it, and then complained it wasn't good enough. The linked article actually sources from a local news report. Where's your evidence that this report is incorrect?
        otterley 5y ago
        In my view, a person making a claim—especially one stating there is “evidence” of this— that a group of people have improper motives in contradiction to the default-held position that their motives are generally good bears the burden of persuasion. It is one thing to claim that we are passing laws in good faith that end up not working as well as we hoped. It’s quite another make unsubstantiated claims that people are acting in bad faith.
        candiodari 5y ago
        Correction: the politicians are accused of acting Amorally. Of taking action regardless of the consequences, of just not caring about the predicted real life effects, or the observed real life effects of legislation. That they're in it purely for their own interests, which have nothing to do with the victims. That they couldn't care less if the legislation helps anyone, just what it will do for them. They're not accused of acting Immorally, which would be taking action with mal intent. They're not trying to increase child prostitution. They're not trying to enable it. They're not looking to abuse children themselves. They're accused of being psychopaths, not criminals. I don't understand how the default position can be anything but that politicians indeed act amorally. There is a very long history of politicians enacting laws specifically to hide prostitution, not to stop it. There is an equally long history of people asking them to do so. Society definitely wants prostitution. Society also wants very vulnerable prostitutes, well hidden from view.
        Supermancho 5y ago
        TechDirt is a SELF-PROCLAIMED rumor mill. It is not a reputable source for anything and the owners make no qualms about it.
  - redis_mlc 5y ago
    You can read the press around Craigslist banning dating, etc. forums because the state Attorneys-General wouldn't even talk to the founder about safe listing effort and oversight.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago

Specifically it made sex trafficking victims harder to rescue, by eliminating the means that LEO used to find them. Evidence indicates that lawmakers don't care about victims in a meaningfully helpful way. They absolutely crave the power/cash that anti-trafficking rhetoric brings. A competent press would examine the history of trafficking laws and report the actual outcomes - instead of parroting the PR that pols hand to them.

otterley 5y ago
What evidence can you point to? Genuinely curious, not shitposting.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  Here's a start. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180705/01033440176/more-police-admitting-that-fosta-sesta-has-made-it-much-more-difficult-to-catch-pimps-traffickers.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180705/01033440176/more-...
  - otterley 5y ago
    I was specifically referring to your claim that “lawmakers don't care about victims in a meaningfully helpful way. They absolutely crave the power/cash that anti-trafficking rhetoric brings.” This article says nothing about that, and TechDirt isn’t exactly a reputable, well-researched newsgathering organization. Sure, they’re great at pointing out hypocrisies and weaknesses for our amusement, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen them do any in-depth analysis or reporting.
    - wonnage 5y ago
      This reply is basically a shitpost. You asked for a source and got it, and then complained it wasn't good enough. The linked article actually sources from a local news report. Where's your evidence that this report is incorrect?
      - otterley 5y ago
        In my view, a person making a claim—especially one stating there is “evidence” of this— that a group of people have improper motives in contradiction to the default-held position that their motives are generally good bears the burden of persuasion. It is one thing to claim that we are passing laws in good faith that end up not working as well as we hoped. It’s quite another make unsubstantiated claims that people are acting in bad faith.
        candiodari 5y ago
        Correction: the politicians are accused of acting Amorally. Of taking action regardless of the consequences, of just not caring about the predicted real life effects, or the observed real life effects of legislation. That they're in it purely for their own interests, which have nothing to do with the victims. That they couldn't care less if the legislation helps anyone, just what it will do for them. They're not accused of acting Immorally, which would be taking action with mal intent. They're not trying to increase child prostitution. They're not trying to enable it. They're not looking to abuse children themselves. They're accused of being psychopaths, not criminals. I don't understand how the default position can be anything but that politicians indeed act amorally. There is a very long history of politicians enacting laws specifically to hide prostitution, not to stop it. There is an equally long history of people asking them to do so. Society definitely wants prostitution. Society also wants very vulnerable prostitutes, well hidden from view.
      - Supermancho 5y ago
        TechDirt is a SELF-PROCLAIMED rumor mill. It is not a reputable source for anything and the owners make no qualms about it.
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  You can read the press around Craigslist banning dating, etc. forums because the state Attorneys-General wouldn't even talk to the founder about safe listing effort and oversight.