Can FOSTA be used to shut down nearly any discussion based web site?

15 comments

• nemesisk7

  •

  6 years ago

  i thought this was the land of the free ?
• MrBater2010

  •

  6 years ago

  I seem to recall that shortly after Traci Lords almost brought down the porn industry. There was some ruling that fictional stories where not the same as pictures and movies. This really scared the industry for a few years in my opinion. How much of that has change I don't know. Just the word "Date" at this point could probably cause problems. But here it the flip to that. Say someone starts posting on a religious forum. First you would probably get a warning, then your account would get banned. Then your IP. (I forget what it is called and it maybe blocked now. It was a network protocol tied to info that allowed your connection to be I.D.) But if they really got tired of that person then they would just reporting them. Still wondering when escorts will hit the dating sites. Just an interest, escorts were never my thing. but it piss me off when you chat it up with someone and then they hit you up. And I am laughing right now over all the nurses in Genea.
• RandomMember

  •

  6 years ago

  No, trolling religious discussion boards is a waste of time. Fighting a bad law requires logic and getting the word out. For example, this article describing why SESTA actually hurts trafficking victims: [view link] "it stands to reason that victims whose services are advertised in more visible places, like Backpage, are more visible to everyone — and thus easier to recover. In this way, Backpage sets a trap for traffickers: lured by the prospect of reaching a large, centralized repository of customers, traffickers end up revealing themselves to law enforcement and victim advocates. There’s nothing to suggest that Backpage causes them to be victimized, but plenty of reason to believe that, without it, they would be much harder to find. "
• lotsoffun201

  •

  6 years ago

  I’ve heard a lot have gravitated towards Seeking Arrangement. I am on Usasexguide but lately it’s slowed tremendously and I have a feeling it’s next to go.
• RandomMember

  •

  6 years ago

  If someone on SA agrees to meet you without bothering to look at your profile and refuses a free meet@greet, you can assume they are escorts. SA also has a reporting system if you observe anything that looks suspicious.
• MrBater2010

  •

  6 years ago

  I may have spoken to soon. AFF has a few new ones, from the profiles" "Spoil me I will spoil you" "Cream pie cutie ready to hook up now! Text me for details don't miss out on my hot sexy ass, I will bring you to sensual heaven! Lets go!"
• MrBater2010

  •

  6 years ago

  So how do we know that hot on a webcam is not locked in a room someplace??? Yeah, I should have join a gym 6 months ago. Or maybe joined a church you know those religious women are closet freaks.
• twentyfive

  •

  6 years ago

  While everyone here is busy debating this bill, you guys are missing the big picture, the fact that a piece of garbage like this has been floating around in one form or another for quite a while now, the real question is why is this the time these incompetent jerks picked to slide this slime into the national debate.
• eyeofodin

  •

  6 years ago

  "I post this hypothetical question because some poorly conceived legislation can have side effects that are unintended-- and exposing those unintended side effects may be a good mechanism to point out the adverse impact of FOSTA on free speech." I'd argue that the side effects are not unintended --- the progressive left is pushing the narrative that women are victims and government needs to take care of them, the religious right is afraid of demographic shifts that are making them less relevant. Both side have a common weapon in their arsenal to achieve their goals. The left will use the courts and media to try and sway the interpretation their way and the bible belt will use the churches and "up standing" politicians to sway the interpretation. It is a win/win for both of the extremes. Both far ends of the political spectrum want a large government, the only difference is the desired outcomes of a large intrusive government. But both side have a vested interest in limiting "free speech" to push their agendas. It will come down to the courts, and regulatory bureaucracies to see which if either sided wins the battle or the "side effects" are too onerous for the American people.
• RandomMember

  •

  6 years ago

  "...the progressive left is pushing the narrative that women are victims " _________ Probably some truth to that and two feminist senators were outspoken supporters. Beyond that, I doubt there's any "vested interest in limiting free speech." The bill was started by Portman, who's one of those dim guys who conflate sex work with trafficking. He introduced a bill with "stop enabling sex trafficking" in the title. Whether or not bill actually accomplishes that, it's impossible to vote against without looking like a monster. Much easier for the other senators to vote in favor, keep their job, and let the courts sort it out.
• eyeofodin

  •

  6 years ago

  RM -- all sides have a vested interest in limiting the message of the opposing side when not in agreement so their message is the main narrative. So I stick by what I wrote. If fringes of both side agree that xyz is bad and are the vocal minority, they can use the bully pulpit or in this case legislation to limit the views of other being expressed to the masses. Free speech is not about you or I controlling what either says but the government/ law impeding the free flow of ideas. And yes my Senator Mr. Portman is part of the problem in DC. Dim is a spot on assessment of his abilities. The man was made to follow the party line of whatever the polls tell him should be his position. He stands for nothing but his own self interest, just my opinion. As much as I disagree with Sherrod Brown, he does stand up for his ideology and is unapologetic.
• mjx01

  •

  6 years ago

  yes. obviously that is the underlying intent
• mafeditor

  •

  6 years ago

  The bill is good confirmation that left AND right want government involved in our lives; just usually disagree about where. Part of problem was Backpage basically told Congress to go spit; Dem or GOP, they hate that. But make no mistake -- while left agreed on this specific bill, the overall drive against ALL adult entertainment comes from religious right and GOP. White evangicals went 80 percent for Republicans; they can't win without them. So what they want gone - strip clubs will be next, then porn (and before you say "come on", take a look at what GOP legislature in Fla. did recently, or Tory gov in Britain, or end of net neutrality, which means IP companies will be pressured to limit access) -- they will get. What you read, see or leer over is NOT going to be under your control, folks -- welcome to new reality
• nemesisk7

  •

  6 years ago

  Not if we move to Brazil , Mexico , czech republic Where men have freedoms
• mark94

  •

  6 years ago

  Unintended consequences.... Calida, 35, is a Chicago-based sex worker who has depended on websites that host classified ads, such as Craigslist and [view link], to meet and screen clients. But the US government’s recent crackdown on those platforms has abruptly eliminated many workers’ primary source of income, forcing some to turn to the streets or to rely on abusive pimps, greatly increasing the risk of violence. “Girls are going back to the streets and they are going to die in the streets, and nobody cares,” said Calida, a mother of two, who said she used to do street work and fears she will have to start again to make ends meet. “Everybody is terrified.”