The key thing that will need to be proven is the complicity of the admins, although if they are already seizing the site I expect the authorities have what a judge or grand jury feels is enough evidence to warrant the seizure.
No. That's what used to be necessary, before SESTA and FOSTA passed[0]. The whole point of SESTA and FOSTA was to remove that requirement - websites are now liable even if they aren't complicit. Even if they take active efforts to combat sex work on their service, they're still liable if someone manages to use the site for that purpose.
Again, none of this relates to sex trafficking. It applies to consensual sex work.
[0] And even though SESTA and FOSTA aren't signed into law yet, Blumenthal specifically wrote the law to apply retroactively. So once the bills are signed, this lower standard is what will apply.
Don't tell me there is none, or never been a sex trafficking thru Facebook.
Well, because SESTA hasn't gone into effect yet. You can bet once it does there will be at least private civil cases against Facebook. Public, including criminal, ones might take until they've got precedent from smashing less well-funded defendants, but they'll come, too, especially (even if Facebook takes drastic action now to prevent future liability) for past cases under the retroactivity provisions (which should be constitutionally problematic for criminal cases, but not so much for civil cases.)
FOSTA has an intent to facilitate prostitution requirement, SESTA has a lower threshold with regard to trafficking.
> Again, none of this relates to sex trafficking. It applies to consensual sex work.
True of FOSTA, but not SESTA.
> And even though SESTA and FOSTA aren't signed into law yet, Blumenthal specifically wrote the law to apply retroactively.
At least as far as criminal liability goes, that is a fairly direct violation of the prohibition on ex post facto laws; for civil liabilities that would otherwise be barred by the Section 230 safe harbor, though, that's not an issue.
And now, well, "Oh yeah we had the power all along" which is what your comment is stating as your belief.
That is why your claims about spin are problematic to me. You are ignoring the background of the situation to make a very narrow claim about "spin" when the claims of "spin" are about the laws they passed citing Backpage.