FOSTA Law... should we worry?

Also, I predict that at about 3pm EST, SJG will start begging us to join his "lifeboat" forum in case TUSCL blinks out of existence.

What a twat.

^^ Didn't realise you used 'twat' over there :-)

In addition to calling me Ishmael, you can also call me an Anglophile. Well, at least when it comes to cussing.

"Didn't realise you used 'twat' over there :-)"

We do when it applies to creeps. :D

Wait, what? “Twat” is a British word? I think I’ve been using that word since I was a kid.

As cuss words go, it is much more common in UK and Commonwealth countries. In America, it's known but a bit more "exotic".

By the way, I totally approve of how this thread is coming off the rails.

@GMD I used that word when I was twelve and my dad made me blow bubbles with a bar of soap. ;(

Ishmael, thanks for your assessment of this legislation. It definitely has had an immediate impact (with regard to CL personals). I agree, there will be challenges due to the first amnendment effect.

I think the fourth paragraph in Ishmael’s post sums up the biggest concern.

Oh I say, old bean, we seem to have gotten ourselves into a bit of a sticky wicket

Emma Stone-

youtube.com

You can make the case from both angles. On the one hand, why on earth would Net Neutrality matter? I mean, if the government wants to make a company do something, it's going to get what it wants. The govt was able to force almost every tech company to build backdoors into their software (leaving us all vulnerable to hacking as a result). And the government has been able to access everyone's phone and browsing records, too. So why can't they shut down a couple of rinky-dink websites?

On the other hand, the government couldn't even stop a bunch of Russian trolls from spreading rumors online that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring out of a pizzeria. IDK

The difference is public disclosure. With net neutrality in place, the ISPs could not restrict site access without publicly violating the law and triggering lawsuits (via the Electronic Freedom Foundation, for example).

Without net neutrality, and with FOSTA, the ISPs can be pressured to restrict access via the law.

The law applies to sites that allow users to:

"solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain goods and services, including firearms, narcotics, alcohol, stolen goods, and "paid services involving physical sexual contact," among others."

Key in on the word 'facilitate'. Whenever we talk about where to go for extras, how to get extras, how to get / conduct OTC, that facilitates an act that then becomes a liability for TUSCL.

This is true for discussions, articles, and individual reviews.

Good analysis, Ishmael. You laid out the reasons FOSTA could have more far reaching effects then you would at first think.

Guess it's time to print out a hardcopy of "The System" before it gets deleted.

@Call.Me.Ishmael,

I understand what you're saying, I'm just a bit skeptical. For example, do you believe that Silk Road could have survived if we had had Net Neutrality laws in place at the time? Well I don't. If the government wants to shut someone down, they can.

Craigslist was sued and pressured into eliminating its Erotic Services section prior to Net Neutrality, in September of 2010. But Backpage was sued and pressured into eliminating its Erotic Services section during the period of Net Neutrality, in January 2017. Both websites were in the crosshairs of Congress, law enforcement officials, and various State and Federal prosecutors. The end result was the same, regardless of Net Neutrality. It was the Telecom Act of 1996 that theoretically protected both Craigslist and Backpage - not Net Neutrality. And the government repeatedly demonstrated that it had ways to get around this law (which has now been rendered moot).

And yes, I know, we're talking about shutting entire websites down, not merely stifling content. But this should demonstrate the reality that governments seldom respect their own laws, especially when officials perceive that public opinion is on their side. At the end of the day, we always have and always will be governed by an angry mob.

Good article from Electronic Frontier Foundation that's been going around:

eff.org

"Throughout the SESTA/FOSTA debate, the bills’ proponents provided little to no evidence that increased platform liability would do anything to reduce trafficking. On the other hand, the bills’ opponents have presented a great deal of evidence that shutting down platforms where sexual services are advertised exposes trafficking victims to more danger."

BHF...

Without net neutrality, the government doesn't need to sue or pressure the sites directly. They can close the traffic spigot via the ISPs, because the ISPs are no longer obligated to treat all web traffic as equal.

Also, it makes it easier for the government to restrict traffic to foreign owned / operated sites that would normally be beyond their reach. Sites that could fill the gap if US-based adult sites get shut down.

^^^

Well, maybe I'm wrong. I just think that the government has already demonstrated its ability and willingness to shut down websites, with or without Net Neutrality. I mean, if the websites were to relocate overseas, why couldn't the US government simply lean on foreign countries to shut down the sites suspected of human trafficking? They've done it before.

Regardless, even if I'm totally wrong, I'm still 100% against the concept of Net Neutrality, and I'm glad that the FCC is ending it. I base this on two basic principles.

First, the people and companies who use a service the most should be the people who pay the most for it. Ending Net Neutrality would allow ISPs to charge bandwidth-hogging firms like Netflix more money, which seems only fair to me. The ISPs can also give Netflix and YouTube a faster "lane" in exchange for a fee, which would be a huge benefit to anyone who's ever experienced endless buffering. It doesn't make any sense to treat heavy hitters like Netflix - which is probably using a third of the internet's capacity right this very minute - exactly the same as a website that gets 10 hits per month on average.

And second, I don't believe that ISPs should be forced to display content that they don't agree with. This includes porn and prostitution. It's simply a matter of property rights. Yes, I'll be unhappy if all the pussy goes away, but I don't base my support for a policy merely on how it affects me personally. The concept of right and wrong matters too.

"First, the people and companies who use a service the most should be the people who pay the most for it."

Damn, just when Juice was getting his finances straight.

I'm so glad you posted about this!

Many of us sex workers are all over Instagram today trying to spread the petition link to get FOSTA repealed. The link is

petitions.whitehouse.gov

Also, this Instagram user has a TON of info about FOSTA on her profile and how it affects current sex workers and customers/clients. She's also an attorney based out of D.C. instagram.com

Even if you don't look at the info she's provided, please sign the petition.