Post-SESTA/FOSTA Self-Censoring for Twitter, Reddit, and Other Social Media
titsandsass.com
titsandsass.com
I've been following the development of https://beakerbrowser.com and I really hope it captures wider attention. -- It's not just super user friendly already, it's actually easier to set up a Beaker website than one on the regular net (literally one click).
https://www.cnet.com/news/state-attorneys-general-push-onlin...
Which suggests Andrew Cuomo had a bigger effect:
https://www.cnet.com/news/n-y-attorney-general-forces-isps-t...
My point was that marijuana has remained popular in the US, despite several decades of draconian suppression. But perhaps people won't care so much about freedom of expression online.
I hope no one thinks it was ever about minimising drug addiction and the organised corruption that feeds off it.
(See also: Gary Webb, private for-profit jails, etc.)
On a side note: it will be interesting to see if tighter government regulation has any impact on the popularity of the dark web.
Mass disobedience is probably the only way.
Decentralized projects will have to resist the urge to listen to these people, because otherwise they shouldn't even bother if the decentralized projects will have built-in censorship mechanisms.
Law enforcement should go straight after the criminals, not after the platforms, just like when they go straight after the people publishing child porn on the Tor network, not after the Tor browser. That's how it should work.
Think about it like this: "how will this censor calls on the network to censor the network". It's quite a conundrom.
Your proposal to well just don't listen to them is a form of self censoring -- not in the usual sense but I don't know a better term. Two sides of the same coin. One is the optimal case, you stay ignorant and it goes away, all do their best. On the other side, you can't just shut your eyes and ignore everything, which leads to various problems, some you don't want to or can't deal with and others can be resolved satisfactory. ...
Funny by-the-way. Zensur in german also means school-related "mark", "grade". Sp census is just evaluation. Weighting. Multiply content by its grade and you get zero contentrating for zero census votes. ... does that make sense?
No way they'll just move to loosely structured, encrypted p2p networks.
"Sponsored by Senators Portman, Blumenthal, McCain, McCaskill, Cornyn, and Heitkamp"
Luddites.
https://www.wired.com/story/craigslist-shuts-personal-ads-fo...
Yeah, Craigslist was scared. And so are a lot of people. Laughing that off is what’s damning.
That's a really disingenuous statement, though I'd expect nothing less from a person who has everything to gain from making Craigslist look shady.
The law very intentionally uses the word "knowingly", which has a lower legal bar than other considerations, like "intentionally". In this case, that means that even if Craigslist took active measures to prevent people from using Craigslist for sex work, they would still be liable for anybody who successfully circumvented their methods.
Secondly, sex trafficking is not the same as sex work. The bill purports to target sex trafficking, but it really applies to sex work - that is, to consensual sexual activity in which money changes hands.
Blumenthal, I should point out, has a long history of targeting Craigslist specifically, going back all the way to his days as AG. He failed to secure the case he wanted against them as AG, so he's going for a scorched earth approach now that he's in the Senate. For him, the Craigslist shutdown is a personal victory, and sticking it to Craigslist was honestly probably one of his motivations for cosponsoring the bill in the first place.
They've been trying to pass something like this for years and I remember reading about this back in the day and actually feeling neutral with the bill if they were able to do it the right way. Given the power of the internet giants I assumed that that would happen, but I guess not. This was awful implementation.
There is a bright side. Now within the new law, this gives a small business a good opportunity to create something similar while testing the legal grounds. If you try hard to prevent all sex trafficking/illegal activity, will the law bend and allow some leeway? Now that many sites are exiting the personals market, it's a good time to try. The advantages these sites had were not due to UI or tech features, but due to wide adaptability so this means it could be a free for all and one business could create a vastly greater user experience because those sites had no reason to innovate.
Do I have the guts to do it? No way. The penalties are too scary and any prosecuter trying to make a name for themselves could destroy anyone's reputation and life.
No. Laws and regulations are never a good environment for startups. Big Cos, on the other hand love them. Until they become too much even for them.
I suppose because they're on obstacle for smaller competitors (small companies, NPOs, startups).
Our legal system is not one in which only those actually liable under any reasonable reading of the law bear costs, and when you widen the scope of liability you also widen the sphere outside that scope where claims that lack genuine merit still aren't trivially dismissable and, especially when you’ve got a prominent (inter)national-scale target and politically driven (and often publicly-funded) opposition, there is a huge chilling effect outside the actual zone of prohibition anytime you expand the scope of legal liability for being a vehicle through which communications flow.
And Senator Blumenthal isn't a big enough idiot to fail to realize that's what is being said, he's just twisting it because he doesn't want to engage with it.
Amazing mental gymnastics.
No, they are specifically saying that expression has improved because the improvements in women's rights are more important than the restrictions or regression of nudity. There is simply no dichotomy there. In fact saying that it is "more important" suggests that restrictions in nudity is also a factor. Again, not a dichotomy.
> The implication is that you either admit expression is better because we have women's rights or you admit you were wrong.
No, you can acknowledge that we have women's rights and still think we have regressed. But for that to be true you would have to argue what is more important than the improvements in women's rights. Otherwise you would be the one making a false dichotomy by claiming that things can't have improved because one thing hasn't.
So, the views of the community have evolved since then and people no longer consider calls for divorce to be obscene. Therefore, the government is not allowed to censor them.
However, no changes have been made to the legal framework. You can easily fall back into Comstockery if the public overwhelmingly decides that such a thing is obscene. The Miller test is not something to be proud of as the safeguard of freedom of expression especially when you consider the current context: people finding discussions of safe prostitution to be obscene. Compare that to the protections offered to people calling for genocide (of Jews, of Muslims, of Atheists, of blacks, etc.) and it is rather perplexing.
Edit: You seem to have a problem with the quotes, so I changed them to italics.
I’m not sure what your thought exercise about putting quotes around words is supposed to prove; feel free to read, say, the Wikipedia article on the subject.
Also, are you seriously saying that my example isn’t a case of community norms?
They are both important topics and there can be often overlaps but they are ultimately different topics.
Some freedoms that quickly come to mind:
the right NOT to have sex (rape within marriage, or of slaves, was legal. Other rape laws were largely unenforced)
gay sex, interracial marriage (and sex), sex among teenagers
Access to pornography is legal, and vastly easier due to technical reasons than in the past.
Women have been recognised as sexual beings equal to men, and their pleasure is no longer ignored.
The possibility to have sex and not get pregnant arose and became easier. So did abortion.
Norms around age of consent were lowered.
Specifically for prostitution: It's a point of heated debate in the feminist community if the liberalisation in, for example, some European countries actually led to better working conditions and less human trafficking.
That's why that community, which advocated for legalisation in the past, is now split on the subject. It's just not clear if legalisation was successful.
Huh? I'd say "raised".
I think the ripple effects from being raised to believe sexuality and nudity are shameful or obscene are much greater than we appreciate.
Bills like this are always bipartisan yet despised by the public.
That happened like in the past few years, which is a tiny fraction of the past 2 centuries. And if extremist Republicans get to rule the government for another decade (whether directly or with the help of "moderate Democrats"), then I don't know if that will last either.
They just had to wrap it up in a noble cause, much like false patriots wrap themselves up in flags.
Businesses selling any controlled good are now being censored "just to be safe" and try to avoid further legal pushes to add more things to the list.
Can we stop pretending this wasn't the goal now?
Clearly this isn't the case, since we're already seeing the chilling effects on platforms. The legislation is so intentionally vague for the benefit of prosecutors, and the very fact that it's ex-post facto (unconstitutional), you could certainly be forgiven for thinking that the sole intention was to produce a chilling effect, and those pushing it were intentionally dishonest.
Of course there haven't been any "unreasonable applications" of it at this point, it only just passed in the Senate several days ago.
This is literally just to wrap it up for the rubes and to find a packaging that could pass.
Craigslist, Patreon, Reddit, Youtube, etc. have all started self-censorship programs in response. Patreon did it last year when this looked like it wouldn't die.
Pretending it was an unforeseen consequence when it began before the law even passed and was literally called out by multiple parties as the cause after it passed for the final holdouts? That is literally burying your head in the sand.
I'm sorry but this is up there with denying the Earth is round when it comes to anyone who has dealt with these groups before.
https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/sesta-anti-sex-trafficking-bi...
It is literally cutting the lifelines that help sex workers avoid being abused.
I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if for some of them it was. For those who tacked on the bill as well as some groups and celebrities (I think Amy Schumer and Seth Myers) some of them might have jumped on with the best of intentions.
I fully expect all the non-professionals involved to be duped into supporting it.
The politicians, the wealthy, and the lobbyists involved, however, wanted this exact response. They now have the tools to leverage any platform that allows UGC to obey since none of them can fully evade the "knowingly" standard if they have employees.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-...
> While we can’t speculate on the agendas of the groups behind SESTA, we can study those same groups’ past advocacy work. Given that history, one could be forgiven for thinking that some of these groups see SESTA as a mere stepping stone to banning pornography from the Internet or blurring the legal distinctions between sex work and trafficking.
The EFF basically called those groups out that are doing this out of social conservatism (rather than legitimate desire to render aid). They alone would not have been enough to push this bill through, just as they have repeatedly failed in the past.
So they needed new wrapping paper and a group of friendly lobbyists who wanted a tool to lean on people with.
It's also not a coincidence that this passed right after Facebook shat on, at least temporarily, tech companies' influence in D.C. One takeaway is we need a broader base who will fight for digital freedoms than big tech companies. Betting on a single point of failure is a losing political strategy.
I quote the EFF
"While we can’t speculate on the agendas of the groups behind SESTA, we can study those same groups’ past advocacy work. Given that history, one could be forgiven for thinking that some of these groups see SESTA as a mere stepping stone to banning pornography from the Internet or blurring the legal distinctions between sex work and trafficking."
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-...
I 100% agree with the EFF analysis of the motivations. This is the first battle in a bigger war over free speech, Free Speech has lost this battle, I hope we do not lose the war
Often righteous creates a sort of blindness.
Until this law actually gets tested in the courts, it is basically impossible to tell what the long-term impact will be. My suspicion is that Reddit et al want to do everything possible to keep a low profile while Facebook is occupying the spotlight. After that has run its course, I would bet there would be a challenge in some form, whether via PR or directly.
Please read that instead of pretending this is some academic debate that won't result in women being abused as a result.
People will suffer long term consequences.
Though I am tempted to say nominally intended to protect them. In this case, I suspect that actually protecting them is not the goal. The actual goal appears to be expressing weird puritan guilt or something. Geez.
I don't disagree. I also stand by my comment. Organizarions are acting out of an abundance of caution. That may persist or it may change depending on what happens when a company actually gets prosecuted under SESTA/FOSTA.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180324231954/http://titsandsas...
The wrong thing to do is to run and hide.
The best response is to find ways to weaponize the law against more powerful groups to create a backlash.
Do VPS providers have to be wary of what sort of tenants they host?
Edit:
What if I rent a VPS and host a porn site?