I haven't read the Act myself but judging from the information in the article framing this as having a special impact Sex Workers in specific seems odd to me.

I haven't read the Act myself but judging from the information in the article framing this as having a special impact Sex Workers in specific seems odd to me. Talking about the role and responsibilities of platforms, whether we should think of them as a "space" where people can talk, like ISPs or the Mail Service or more like a publisher, the implication on freedom of speech vs freedom not to be offended, etc, would be more productive and cover the impact of this Act more broadly and more accurate than trough the lenses of a specific profession. The issue of over policing and censorship hasn't anything to do with sex work, they just a one group that will likely be affected but many, many more people who are not sex workers will be affected too. To me it sounds like talking about the performance implications of a processor design decision for fortan-based web servers, I mean yes sure they will be affected by reducing core count in favor of a bigger cache, but so will a lot of things and there is nothing special about them to warrant them being the focus of such an article. If this article was targeted at sex workers and/or their clients specifically it would make sense, but vice is a mainstream thing isn't it? Also I hate this kind of click-bait articles SAFE TECH will not break the internet and even if it did, engineers, tech-pioneers, relevant companies like Google or Microsoft, etc would be way more qualified to explain why it will than sex workers.