Craigslist Just Shut Down Its Infamous Personals Section
March 23, 2018 8:02 AM Subscribe
Craigslist just got rid of its entire personals section, which was reportedly one of the most used parts of the site, thanks to a new law aimed at cracking down on sex trafficking.
Engadget: Craiglist blocks personal ads to protest anti sex-trafficking law
Engadget: Craiglist blocks personal ads to protest anti sex-trafficking law
The passing of the controversial, ham-handed Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA-FOSTA) has prompted Craigslist to close its personals section. The bill is designed to punish websites with criminal sanctions if they are seen to be facilitating sex work, as a personals ad could be. Unfortunately, the legislation is drawn so poorly that any website that connects people could be targeted.CNN Money: Craigslist is shutting down its personals section. (Autoplaying video
However, tech industry associations and internet rights advocates are concerned about the free speech implications of the legislation. In August 2017, 10 tech trade groups -- including the Internet Association and the Interactive Advertising Bureau -- coauthored a letter condemning the Senate bill and said it would have a "chilling effect" on companies.The Verge: Craigslist will no longer display personal ads after passage of sex trafficking bill
"Platforms will err on the side of extreme caution in removing content uploaded by their users, while cutting back on proactive prevention measures," the groups warned in the letter.
The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act was introduced to crack down on sex trafficking on the internet where sites like backpage.com are used for sex ads. But, it has also sparked opposition from sex workers and some free-internet activists, who say the bill is a form of censorship and will also place an unrealistic burden on small website operators. The bill updates Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which shields companies from liability for content posted by their users.LGBTQ Nation: Craigslist closes its personals section after sex trafficking bill passes
LGBTQ people will be particularly affected. There is evidence that LGBTQ people are more likely to use the internet when looking for sex and love, which makes sense considering how geographically isolated many are.
Reddit also banned a huge list of subreddits that "facilitate transactions" for alcohol, drugs, firearms, or sexual contact. The most controversial bans were /r/beertrade (I mail you a local craft beer, you mail me a local craft beer), /r/gundeals (a board to list links to good deals on guns), and /r/shoplifting (what it says on the tin).
posted by muddgirl at 8:14 AM on March 23, 2018 [14 favorites]
posted by muddgirl at 8:14 AM on March 23, 2018 [14 favorites]
So...this will all go to Tinder and OKCupid now?
posted by schadenfrau at 8:20 AM on March 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by schadenfrau at 8:20 AM on March 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
Surely this will stop prostitution once and for all.
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:24 AM on March 23, 2018 [65 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:24 AM on March 23, 2018 [65 favorites]
(/s)
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:24 AM on March 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:24 AM on March 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
NPR had a story recently about the backpage thing, ads showing a missing underage girl were being shown advertising lolita services, but the site said it wasn't liable for the ads because they were just user generated content, so they had no responsibility to police them.
Obviously, underage and nonconsensual trafficking is something to combat, and holding people responsible for aiding those services should be possible.
I think CL and other companies are protesting how generalized the legislation ended up, opening sites who have personals, with a variety of consenting adults asking for consensual things, to legal consequences.
posted by dreamling at 8:29 AM on March 23, 2018 [6 favorites]
Obviously, underage and nonconsensual trafficking is something to combat, and holding people responsible for aiding those services should be possible.
I think CL and other companies are protesting how generalized the legislation ended up, opening sites who have personals, with a variety of consenting adults asking for consensual things, to legal consequences.
posted by dreamling at 8:29 AM on March 23, 2018 [6 favorites]
Unfortunately, the legislation is drawn so poorly that any website that connects people could be targeted.
Man, oh man.
While it doesn't surprise me in the least that our elected officials, in their haste to do SOMETHING, have cobbled together a Frankenstein's monster of poorly thought out ideas, personal opinions on how people SHOULD live their lives, and shitty conclusions drawn from the above, this really could have repercussions well beyond their fevered dreams.
WONderful.
It will be interesting if this toilet overflows and affects sites such as Tinder, Grindr, Match, OKCupid, MeetUp and others. Hell, let's throw in Facebook and Twitter to this list while we're at it.
The whole damn internet CONNECTS PEOPLE.
SHUT IT DOWN!
/s as well, kinda sorta.
posted by Major Matt Mason Dixon at 8:34 AM on March 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
Man, oh man.
While it doesn't surprise me in the least that our elected officials, in their haste to do SOMETHING, have cobbled together a Frankenstein's monster of poorly thought out ideas, personal opinions on how people SHOULD live their lives, and shitty conclusions drawn from the above, this really could have repercussions well beyond their fevered dreams.
WONderful.
It will be interesting if this toilet overflows and affects sites such as Tinder, Grindr, Match, OKCupid, MeetUp and others. Hell, let's throw in Facebook and Twitter to this list while we're at it.
The whole damn internet CONNECTS PEOPLE.
SHUT IT DOWN!
/s as well, kinda sorta.
posted by Major Matt Mason Dixon at 8:34 AM on March 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
Female homicide rate dropped after Craigslist launched its erotic services platform
They’ll be going back up again.
posted by Artw at 8:35 AM on March 23, 2018 [31 favorites]
They’ll be going back up again.
posted by Artw at 8:35 AM on March 23, 2018 [31 favorites]
Guess I'll have to take my business to Ashley Madison.
posted by ocschwar at 8:47 AM on March 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
posted by ocschwar at 8:47 AM on March 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
So...this will all go to Tinder and OKCupid now?
A major problem with this law as written is that sites like Tinder and OKC could also be found liable - including jail time for executives - if trafficking is found to be facilitated via their platform. It’ll be interesting to see what dating sites do over the next few weeks.
posted by Itaxpica at 8:48 AM on March 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
A major problem with this law as written is that sites like Tinder and OKC could also be found liable - including jail time for executives - if trafficking is found to be facilitated via their platform. It’ll be interesting to see what dating sites do over the next few weeks.
posted by Itaxpica at 8:48 AM on March 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
As with most laws addressing sexual issues, this law isn't meant to protect women; it's meant to control them.
posted by holborne at 8:48 AM on March 23, 2018 [86 favorites]
posted by holborne at 8:48 AM on March 23, 2018 [86 favorites]
(To be clear, where “found to be facilitated” is an extremely vague, nebulous standard)
posted by Itaxpica at 8:48 AM on March 23, 2018
posted by Itaxpica at 8:48 AM on March 23, 2018
This is terrible policy, as one would expect from thoughtless GOP busybodies who can't be bothered even on a point as well-intentioned as sex trafficking to think about anything at all other than a single concern (and any other concerns in tension with it no matter how legitimate be damned!).
That said, I'm not sure CL personals wasn't a haven for trafficking. I've used it for legit dates, I've met couples who met there, and so I know that's not what it was all about and I'm sorry it's shut down. But I think anyone who's used it knows that it was overwhelmed by people selling sex, often to the frustration of people who were looking for a connection that was not transactional. And with the volume of prostitution on the site, it seems pretty likely there was some coerced trafficking consistently associated with it.
CL didn't seem to care enough to try and do anything about this, either to address frustrated users or potential human suffering, which I suppose makes some sense, given that it wasn't exactly a revenue stream for them.
I'll miss having a "dating medium" that was text-first vs the now omnipresent picture-swipe, but I'm not sure my or anyone's desire for that outweighs the importance of taking *some* responsibility for trying to mitigate problems like CL personals had, albeit one more measured than the legislation at hand.
It’ll be interesting to see what dating sites do over the next few weeks.
And any c2c site, really, and maybe this is a silver lining here. Successful sites have a large audience, some of whom vote, in case it wasn't already clear that the GOP is a nested russian doll of dumpster fires.
posted by wildblueyonder at 9:08 AM on March 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
That said, I'm not sure CL personals wasn't a haven for trafficking. I've used it for legit dates, I've met couples who met there, and so I know that's not what it was all about and I'm sorry it's shut down. But I think anyone who's used it knows that it was overwhelmed by people selling sex, often to the frustration of people who were looking for a connection that was not transactional. And with the volume of prostitution on the site, it seems pretty likely there was some coerced trafficking consistently associated with it.
CL didn't seem to care enough to try and do anything about this, either to address frustrated users or potential human suffering, which I suppose makes some sense, given that it wasn't exactly a revenue stream for them.
I'll miss having a "dating medium" that was text-first vs the now omnipresent picture-swipe, but I'm not sure my or anyone's desire for that outweighs the importance of taking *some* responsibility for trying to mitigate problems like CL personals had, albeit one more measured than the legislation at hand.
It’ll be interesting to see what dating sites do over the next few weeks.
And any c2c site, really, and maybe this is a silver lining here. Successful sites have a large audience, some of whom vote, in case it wasn't already clear that the GOP is a nested russian doll of dumpster fires.
posted by wildblueyonder at 9:08 AM on March 23, 2018 [5 favorites]
Yeah, this is a mess a long time coming, thanks to the tech ignorant Batzel ruling, the refusal to fix the inherent problem at the heart of it, and how that has lead to this.
The Batzel case was a defamation case out of Southern California, in which the operator of a curated listserv dealing with tracking stolen artworks and other museum pieces had passed along a false tip to his listserv members that the plaintiff was the descendant of a notorious Nazi leader (she wasn't) and that she possessed works that were looted during WWII (she didn't). This not only ruined her professional reputation, but put her in actual danger, as she now became a target for breakins by white supremacists looking for the family Nazi heirlooms. The tip had been falsely passed off by a disgruntled contractor who had worked for the plaintiff on her house.
In response to the lawsuit, the defense raised the claim that since his was an online service, and he was just passing along reports sent by end users, that Section 230 indemnified him. Now, to anyone who understands how this particular system works, this argument is utterly baffling - yes, he's receiving reports from end users, which he then was selecting to send out in the bulletins he issued. His applying editorial control prior to publication should have stripped any aspect of the report being from end users away - this is why newspapers don't publish letters to the editor that are defamatory. But the court, not understanding how the technology works, ruled that the defendant was indemnified by Section 230,turning it into a wide ranging blanket indemnification.
This set up a very problematic tension with the law. Yes, there were many websites that were using it to protect themselves from being held liable for the acts of end users that they had no knowledge of, but there were also websites that were knowingly pushing behavior that they knew was illegal or would normally open them to legal liability, but had constructed a system where by the content was supplied by "end users", giving them a legal fig leaf. The rise of things like revenge porn websites using Section 230 as a shield and the whole Backpage.com fiasco (yes, while the courts and legislature did ultimately determine they weren't protected, the effectiveness of their argument that they were should have raised eyebrows) should have been a wake-up call that perhaps a blanket indemnity wasn't the best idea. The problem is that instead, we got the push that no, the only way to protect free speech online is to have blanket indemnity. This winds up being a problem for two reasons - one, being a slippery slope argument, it's not terribly convincing, and two, by being unwilling to discuss any fixes to the problem, it ceded the grounds to people who were.
Does all that mean this bill isn't a mess? No, it doesn't, and given the criticisms, there's a lot that's going to wind up shaking out when all is said and done. But it was a mess that was avoidable, if we had taken the issue at heart seriously and worked to resolve it, rather than pretended it didn't actually exist.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:13 AM on March 23, 2018 [34 favorites]
The Batzel case was a defamation case out of Southern California, in which the operator of a curated listserv dealing with tracking stolen artworks and other museum pieces had passed along a false tip to his listserv members that the plaintiff was the descendant of a notorious Nazi leader (she wasn't) and that she possessed works that were looted during WWII (she didn't). This not only ruined her professional reputation, but put her in actual danger, as she now became a target for breakins by white supremacists looking for the family Nazi heirlooms. The tip had been falsely passed off by a disgruntled contractor who had worked for the plaintiff on her house.
In response to the lawsuit, the defense raised the claim that since his was an online service, and he was just passing along reports sent by end users, that Section 230 indemnified him. Now, to anyone who understands how this particular system works, this argument is utterly baffling - yes, he's receiving reports from end users, which he then was selecting to send out in the bulletins he issued. His applying editorial control prior to publication should have stripped any aspect of the report being from end users away - this is why newspapers don't publish letters to the editor that are defamatory. But the court, not understanding how the technology works, ruled that the defendant was indemnified by Section 230,turning it into a wide ranging blanket indemnification.
This set up a very problematic tension with the law. Yes, there were many websites that were using it to protect themselves from being held liable for the acts of end users that they had no knowledge of, but there were also websites that were knowingly pushing behavior that they knew was illegal or would normally open them to legal liability, but had constructed a system where by the content was supplied by "end users", giving them a legal fig leaf. The rise of things like revenge porn websites using Section 230 as a shield and the whole Backpage.com fiasco (yes, while the courts and legislature did ultimately determine they weren't protected, the effectiveness of their argument that they were should have raised eyebrows) should have been a wake-up call that perhaps a blanket indemnity wasn't the best idea. The problem is that instead, we got the push that no, the only way to protect free speech online is to have blanket indemnity. This winds up being a problem for two reasons - one, being a slippery slope argument, it's not terribly convincing, and two, by being unwilling to discuss any fixes to the problem, it ceded the grounds to people who were.
Does all that mean this bill isn't a mess? No, it doesn't, and given the criticisms, there's a lot that's going to wind up shaking out when all is said and done. But it was a mess that was avoidable, if we had taken the issue at heart seriously and worked to resolve it, rather than pretended it didn't actually exist.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:13 AM on March 23, 2018 [34 favorites]
Tinder and OKCupid are owned by Match, which is in turn owned by IAC, which is Barry Diller’s company.
They’ll be fine.
posted by schadenfrau at 9:13 AM on March 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
They’ll be fine.
posted by schadenfrau at 9:13 AM on March 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
Ok that link mistakenly goes to a cat terminator gif, and it stays
posted by schadenfrau at 9:14 AM on March 23, 2018 [84 favorites]
posted by schadenfrau at 9:14 AM on March 23, 2018 [84 favorites]
I'm sure Craigslist will still keep going because people still need classifieds, but, man, it feels representative of life in 2018 that it's going to take a big hit and be replaced by a combination of nothing and whatever tiny splinter sites form or get redirected to fill these needs. I guess we're reaching the point where even the most durable of the first wave of Internet disruptors is now getting disrupted, and no one really seems to have a lot of ideas for replacement institutions, and even less of a solution for the damage to industries that were hit by the original disruption.
posted by Copronymus at 9:15 AM on March 23, 2018 [6 favorites]
posted by Copronymus at 9:15 AM on March 23, 2018 [6 favorites]
Socialize vice retailing.
Like gambling (OLG), hard liquor (LCBO), and soon MJ (OCS) in Ontario. I would add firearms (clearly a vice) and prostitution to that.
We figured out many decades ago that most vices cannot effectively be prohibited. This way, the profit from societal vulnerability and/or self-harm goes back into society's coffers for the benefit of all, not a private profiteer. Plus, the expense of regulating and policing troublesome industries is greatly reduced.
However, with the propagation of craft breweries (as cool as they are) and Doug Ford's platform plank to completely privatise MJ, unfortunately Ontario moving in the wrong direction.
As for the U.S., man, I don't know what to tell you.
posted by CynicalKnight at 9:22 AM on March 23, 2018 [4 favorites]
Like gambling (OLG), hard liquor (LCBO), and soon MJ (OCS) in Ontario. I would add firearms (clearly a vice) and prostitution to that.
We figured out many decades ago that most vices cannot effectively be prohibited. This way, the profit from societal vulnerability and/or self-harm goes back into society's coffers for the benefit of all, not a private profiteer. Plus, the expense of regulating and policing troublesome industries is greatly reduced.
However, with the propagation of craft breweries (as cool as they are) and Doug Ford's platform plank to completely privatise MJ, unfortunately Ontario moving in the wrong direction.
As for the U.S., man, I don't know what to tell you.
posted by CynicalKnight at 9:22 AM on March 23, 2018 [4 favorites]
What's truly infuriating is that this bill went through 97-2 in the senate. Even my liberal Massachusetts senators were too tech-unsavvy to understand that this bill was aimed at hurting women, not protecting them.
posted by explosion at 9:24 AM on March 23, 2018 [14 favorites]
posted by explosion at 9:24 AM on March 23, 2018 [14 favorites]
And with the volume of prostitution on the site, it seems pretty likely there was some coerced trafficking consistently associated with it.
I mean, sure, but people have a right to trade sex for money if they so choose. If we legalized sex work, this would become a much simpler matter, because there would be legal protections in place for those who choose sex work.
posted by Automocar at 9:28 AM on March 23, 2018 [10 favorites]
I mean, sure, but people have a right to trade sex for money if they so choose. If we legalized sex work, this would become a much simpler matter, because there would be legal protections in place for those who choose sex work.
posted by Automocar at 9:28 AM on March 23, 2018 [10 favorites]
So the solution is to drive it underground where bad things happen. It's like making crap laws is the world's second oldest profession.
posted by adept256 at 9:48 AM on March 23, 2018 [24 favorites]
posted by adept256 at 9:48 AM on March 23, 2018 [24 favorites]
A lot of sex workers and sex worker-adjacent folks have been pointing out that this isn't really going to stamp out sex work, it's just going to put sex workers back on the street since they can't have a conversation with potential clients from the safety of their homes.
It's going to make it harder to discuss dangerous people and places. It's going to make it harder to share resources and safety tips.
This law, like almost every other law that targets sex work, does much more to endanger sex workers than to protect them or prevent sex work.
posted by explosion at 9:49 AM on March 23, 2018 [37 favorites]
It's going to make it harder to discuss dangerous people and places. It's going to make it harder to share resources and safety tips.
This law, like almost every other law that targets sex work, does much more to endanger sex workers than to protect them or prevent sex work.
posted by explosion at 9:49 AM on March 23, 2018 [37 favorites]
Female homicide rate dropped after Craigslist launched its erotic services platform
They’ll be going back up again.
So women should sleep with men so they don't kill us? Like shutting down personals is stupid as all hell- but I really don't like this argument.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 9:55 AM on March 23, 2018 [7 favorites]
They’ll be going back up again.
So women should sleep with men so they don't kill us? Like shutting down personals is stupid as all hell- but I really don't like this argument.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 9:55 AM on March 23, 2018 [7 favorites]
I wonder where cloud service providers fall under this bill?
posted by bdc34 at 9:56 AM on March 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by bdc34 at 9:56 AM on March 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
I was single during the era when "online dating" basically meant Craigslist personals. Ultimately, an ad I posted there attracted an amazing woman whom I now live with in wedded bliss. So for me, the end of Craigslist personals is something to mourn.
.
posted by /\/\/\/ at 9:57 AM on March 23, 2018 [14 favorites]
.
posted by /\/\/\/ at 9:57 AM on March 23, 2018 [14 favorites]
So women should sleep with men so they don't kill us? Like shutting down personals is stupid as all hell- but I really don't like this argument.
That's not the argument. Women establishing contact in a place where they are physically safe from potential harm is why CL reduced the rate of violent encounters.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:59 AM on March 23, 2018 [57 favorites]
That's not the argument. Women establishing contact in a place where they are physically safe from potential harm is why CL reduced the rate of violent encounters.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:59 AM on March 23, 2018 [57 favorites]
(1) SESTA/FOSTA will make sex trafficking victims less safe. Visibility on a site like Craigslist, etc., does increase customers, but it also increases the likelihood that law enforcement will be able to locate and identify victims.
(2) Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act (CDA) already allows prosecutors to go after websites and other third parties that actively participate in human trafficking, without imposing this crushing liability on the websites and third parties. It's a hard line to draw, but the CDA does is it relatively well — certainly better than SESTA/FOSTA.
(3) SESTA/FOSTA is not just about stamping out sex trafficking; it is also motivated by a desire to stamp out consensual sex work. And as a (consensual) sex worker, who cares very deeply about stamping out sex trafficking, I am angry because this will accomplish neither of their goals. It will only drive both industries further underground, exacerbating the harms of both.
In the hands of an overzealous prosecutor (know any?), SESTA/FOSTA could spell the end for a variety of social media and dating sites. It will certainly get at sites that facilitate any sort of interaction between clients and service providers, which service providers use to try and screen dangerous customers. (Screening clients online isn't always easy, but overall it's much easier to screen clients in advance online than it is to screen them in the moment on the street.) But it could also potentially get at sites that provide resources for sex workers. For example, there are sites where sex workers can swap information about customers, including but not limited to customers who don't pay, customers who blackmail you, customers who sexually assault and rape you.
I'll never forget the time my significant other went to an event ostensibly aimed at preventing sex trafficking, only to discover that the organizers, speakers, etc. conflate sex trafficking with consensual sex work. He came back all upset about the inaccurate, stigma-perpetuating, and all-around nasty comments made about people in my industry.
"They hate you," he said to me in this confused and sad voice. "They've never even met you, but they hate you." He told me that the hatred seemed almost fanatical-religious in nature; they hated me, but should I repent my sex work and adopt their hatred, they'd welcome me into their good graces.
I'm going to keep up my sex work, just like I'm going to keep up my commitment against sex trafficking. (My commitment against sex trafficking manifests itself in a number of ways that I won't list here for privacy concerns, but please believe me when I say that they are real and genuine and making a difference.) Indeed, sex workers are in a unique position to make help victims of sex trafficking. And we're going to remain allies to sex trafficking victims, no matter how the rest of society treats us.
I strongly believe that an industry like sex work gets better the more good, sex-trafficking-aware people you put involve in it. I also believe that's true of politics ... but politicians (and so much of society!) hate me and my friends (at least when they're not patronizing us!). And thus, you end up with a mess like SESTA/FOSTA.
posted by Peppermint Snowflake at 10:02 AM on March 23, 2018 [84 favorites]
(2) Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act (CDA) already allows prosecutors to go after websites and other third parties that actively participate in human trafficking, without imposing this crushing liability on the websites and third parties. It's a hard line to draw, but the CDA does is it relatively well — certainly better than SESTA/FOSTA.
(3) SESTA/FOSTA is not just about stamping out sex trafficking; it is also motivated by a desire to stamp out consensual sex work. And as a (consensual) sex worker, who cares very deeply about stamping out sex trafficking, I am angry because this will accomplish neither of their goals. It will only drive both industries further underground, exacerbating the harms of both.
In the hands of an overzealous prosecutor (know any?), SESTA/FOSTA could spell the end for a variety of social media and dating sites. It will certainly get at sites that facilitate any sort of interaction between clients and service providers, which service providers use to try and screen dangerous customers. (Screening clients online isn't always easy, but overall it's much easier to screen clients in advance online than it is to screen them in the moment on the street.) But it could also potentially get at sites that provide resources for sex workers. For example, there are sites where sex workers can swap information about customers, including but not limited to customers who don't pay, customers who blackmail you, customers who sexually assault and rape you.
I'll never forget the time my significant other went to an event ostensibly aimed at preventing sex trafficking, only to discover that the organizers, speakers, etc. conflate sex trafficking with consensual sex work. He came back all upset about the inaccurate, stigma-perpetuating, and all-around nasty comments made about people in my industry.
"They hate you," he said to me in this confused and sad voice. "They've never even met you, but they hate you." He told me that the hatred seemed almost fanatical-religious in nature; they hated me, but should I repent my sex work and adopt their hatred, they'd welcome me into their good graces.
I'm going to keep up my sex work, just like I'm going to keep up my commitment against sex trafficking. (My commitment against sex trafficking manifests itself in a number of ways that I won't list here for privacy concerns, but please believe me when I say that they are real and genuine and making a difference.) Indeed, sex workers are in a unique position to make help victims of sex trafficking. And we're going to remain allies to sex trafficking victims, no matter how the rest of society treats us.
I strongly believe that an industry like sex work gets better the more good, sex-trafficking-aware people you put involve in it. I also believe that's true of politics ... but politicians (and so much of society!) hate me and my friends (at least when they're not patronizing us!). And thus, you end up with a mess like SESTA/FOSTA.
posted by Peppermint Snowflake at 10:02 AM on March 23, 2018 [84 favorites]
So women should sleep with men so they don't kill us? Like shutting down personals is stupid as all hell- but I really don't like this argument.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 12:55 PM on March 23 [+] [!]
I don't quite understand how you got to this point of argument, but I can tell you your interpretation of the scenario is wrong
posted by FirstMateKate at 10:02 AM on March 23, 2018 [6 favorites]
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 12:55 PM on March 23 [+] [!]
I don't quite understand how you got to this point of argument, but I can tell you your interpretation of the scenario is wrong
posted by FirstMateKate at 10:02 AM on March 23, 2018 [6 favorites]
It seems unlikely that this could pass court challenges. I appreciate craigslist making the point, however.
posted by theora55 at 10:04 AM on March 23, 2018
posted by theora55 at 10:04 AM on March 23, 2018
*sigh*
sorry- misinterpreted the study.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 10:04 AM on March 23, 2018 [10 favorites]
sorry- misinterpreted the study.
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 10:04 AM on March 23, 2018 [10 favorites]
I met my wonderful wife on Craigslist personals - I'm a little sad about this news.
posted by mctsonic at 10:16 AM on March 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by mctsonic at 10:16 AM on March 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
If we legalized sex work, this would become a much simpler matter, because there would be legal protections in place for those who choose sex work.
No. The social context of sex work is never a simple matter, and legalizing it doesn't always make it a simple matter.
Holland recenty moved to re-illegalize prostitution, because so many of the sex workers were from Romania, Moldova, or worst of all, Transdnistria, and were being kept under duress on account of people back home whose safety could be threatened. Since they couldn't keep coersion out of it, they stopped tolerating it.
posted by ocschwar at 10:16 AM on March 23, 2018 [21 favorites]
No. The social context of sex work is never a simple matter, and legalizing it doesn't always make it a simple matter.
Holland recenty moved to re-illegalize prostitution, because so many of the sex workers were from Romania, Moldova, or worst of all, Transdnistria, and were being kept under duress on account of people back home whose safety could be threatened. Since they couldn't keep coersion out of it, they stopped tolerating it.
posted by ocschwar at 10:16 AM on March 23, 2018 [21 favorites]
No. The social context of sex work is never a simple matter, and legalizing it doesn't always make it a simple matter.
Holland recenty moved to re-illegalize prostitution, because so many of the sex workers were from Romania, Moldova, or worst of all, Transdnistria, and were being kept under duress on account of people back home whose safety could be threatened. Since they couldn't keep coersion out of it, they stopped tolerating it.
Yeah, I get you, and my comment was really just in response to someone saying that shutting down a vehicle for sex workers to get clients is okay because some percentage of sex trafficking will also be stopped. The problem is sex trafficking, not sex work.
posted by Automocar at 10:23 AM on March 23, 2018
Holland recenty moved to re-illegalize prostitution, because so many of the sex workers were from Romania, Moldova, or worst of all, Transdnistria, and were being kept under duress on account of people back home whose safety could be threatened. Since they couldn't keep coersion out of it, they stopped tolerating it.
Yeah, I get you, and my comment was really just in response to someone saying that shutting down a vehicle for sex workers to get clients is okay because some percentage of sex trafficking will also be stopped. The problem is sex trafficking, not sex work.
posted by Automocar at 10:23 AM on March 23, 2018
Voting against SESTA was basically the only thing I got a letter back from my senator about, basically saying, “I’m voting for it no matter what my constituents say.”
posted by jeweled accumulation at 10:50 AM on March 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by jeweled accumulation at 10:50 AM on March 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
I mean, sure, but people have a right to trade sex for money if they so choose. If we legalized sex work, this would become a much simpler matter, because there would be legal protections in place for those who choose sex work.
It becomes simpler to police abuse of sex workers because people participating in sex work can go to authorities when they're abused without fear of being themselves locked up.
Whether this solves *trafficking*, though, I don't think is clear. Trafficking and abuse share some characteristics but they're distinct in some ways, and legal consequences that might befall voluntary sex workers are probably not the only or overriding concern of people being trafficked.
And while legality provides the opportunity for legibility and regulation (and I find most of Peppermint Snowflake's arguments above persuasive), it's not at all hard to imagine a dynamic where voluntary legal activity ends up providing cover for coerced activity. I'd love to see empirical evidence about how those are or aren't connected, but after a while of looking for it myself, the thing I'm most convinced of is that confirmation bias is more heavily correlated with most people talking about this issue than it is with most topics.
Perhaps this thread will be the place where I discover research that seems to transcend that dynamic.
posted by wildblueyonder at 10:51 AM on March 23, 2018
It becomes simpler to police abuse of sex workers because people participating in sex work can go to authorities when they're abused without fear of being themselves locked up.
Whether this solves *trafficking*, though, I don't think is clear. Trafficking and abuse share some characteristics but they're distinct in some ways, and legal consequences that might befall voluntary sex workers are probably not the only or overriding concern of people being trafficked.
And while legality provides the opportunity for legibility and regulation (and I find most of Peppermint Snowflake's arguments above persuasive), it's not at all hard to imagine a dynamic where voluntary legal activity ends up providing cover for coerced activity. I'd love to see empirical evidence about how those are or aren't connected, but after a while of looking for it myself, the thing I'm most convinced of is that confirmation bias is more heavily correlated with most people talking about this issue than it is with most topics.
Perhaps this thread will be the place where I discover research that seems to transcend that dynamic.
posted by wildblueyonder at 10:51 AM on March 23, 2018
Also since more people are trafficked to do domestic work or hard labour then we know what trafficking legislation that only targets sex workers is really about.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:54 AM on March 23, 2018 [18 favorites]
posted by Space Coyote at 10:54 AM on March 23, 2018 [18 favorites]
So... Mike Pence is finally in charge then?
posted by rokusan at 11:21 AM on March 23, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by rokusan at 11:21 AM on March 23, 2018 [4 favorites]
One other reason that could have gone into this: I've seen people openly selling drugs in the personals sections for years.
posted by noxperpetua at 11:36 AM on March 23, 2018
posted by noxperpetua at 11:36 AM on March 23, 2018
And yet their ""Internship""-filled* slavery ads...sorry, "job listings", are allowed to stand? Every day this country's priorities get more and more out of whack.
*I hereby decree that the use of double quotation marks = super-sarcastic 90s-style finger quotes.
posted by sexyrobot at 11:40 AM on March 23, 2018 [6 favorites]
*I hereby decree that the use of double quotation marks = super-sarcastic 90s-style finger quotes.
posted by sexyrobot at 11:40 AM on March 23, 2018 [6 favorites]
> Holland recenty moved to re-illegalize prostitution, because so many of the sex workers were from Romania, Moldova, or worst of all, Transdnistria, and were being kept under duress on account of people back home whose safety could be threatened.I'm certain that I am ignorant of some aspects of this, but such a move would appear to be unnecessary and counter-productive: was there some reason that existing laws against coercion, human smuggling, and gangs weren't effective against the traffickers? At the worst, I'd suggest that a blanket law protecting recent immigrants from sex work would be a better solution.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 11:45 AM on March 23, 2018
Yassss, newspapers can finally have classifieds section and start making money again!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:48 PM on March 23, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:48 PM on March 23, 2018 [4 favorites]
I'm certain that I am ignorant of some aspects of this, but such a move would appear to be unnecessary and counter-productive:
You are literally ignorant of decades of problems, public outrage, investigations, prosecutions and investigate journalism about this topic. Holland chose not to be a destination for sex slavery after trying many things to prevent it. I'd strongly recommend a cursory Google of the issues before deciding they are wrong and you can solve it in the abstract with a few minutes thought.
posted by fshgrl at 1:12 PM on March 23, 2018 [17 favorites]
You are literally ignorant of decades of problems, public outrage, investigations, prosecutions and investigate journalism about this topic. Holland chose not to be a destination for sex slavery after trying many things to prevent it. I'd strongly recommend a cursory Google of the issues before deciding they are wrong and you can solve it in the abstract with a few minutes thought.
posted by fshgrl at 1:12 PM on March 23, 2018 [17 favorites]
Prostitution is one of those things where my personal theory doesn't quite work out in practice. In theory, selling sex should be no different from selling any other kind of labor. In theory, I'm all for legal prostitution. In practice... well, in practice it still seems to end up with a whole lot of women being raped.
posted by tavella at 1:33 PM on March 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by tavella at 1:33 PM on March 23, 2018 [1 favorite]
> You are literally ignorantI feel that this response is unkind. When someone openly declares their lack of knowledge in a topic and asks a question in good faith, I would hope that the community is better than "You're ignorant, go Google." (Happy to take this to MetaTalk, if it's considered a derail).
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 1:52 PM on March 23, 2018 [23 favorites]
I'm certain that I am ignorant of some aspects of this, but such a move would appear to be unnecessary and counter-productive: was there some reason that existing laws against coercion, human smuggling, and gangs weren't effective against the traffickers?
The women barely speak Dutch. They work for pimps who know the names and addresses of loved ones back home, and who can quite credibly threaten to arrange something for those loved ones. The Dutch police are not able to muscle their way between the women and their pimps on account of this.
posted by ocschwar at 2:00 PM on March 23, 2018 [11 favorites]
The women barely speak Dutch. They work for pimps who know the names and addresses of loved ones back home, and who can quite credibly threaten to arrange something for those loved ones. The Dutch police are not able to muscle their way between the women and their pimps on account of this.
posted by ocschwar at 2:00 PM on March 23, 2018 [11 favorites]
When I was single in the mid-Aughts I used Craigslist personals. Because it was Craigslist, I would post ads which basically outlined multiple ludicrous date scenarios and asked interested parties to choose one. This occasionally worked. One time the respondent chose "A pizza-eating contest followed by high-glam karaoke."
So we meet up, and my date tells me that she's recently been going to the gym, and could we maybe have a salad-eating contest instead? OK, sure, I reply. So we find a Thai restaurant, sit down, and order two salads. Once the salads arrive, she looks at me with an "are we really actually doing this ridiculous stunt" look and I return with a "what kind of charlatan do you take me for" look and, after I count down from 3, we dive - hands-free - into our salads.
It should be noted that there was a family of four celebrating the graduation of their eldest son at the table next to us.
After we finished - I won, due to my, uh, more intense commitment to the act - the waiter came over and asked it we wanted anything else. We ordered curry, to which the waiter responded with an agonized look. "Oh!" I replied, reassuringly, "we're going to use utensils."
Who knows now how such shenanigans will be arranged? RIP, CL personals.
posted by grumpybear69 at 2:10 PM on March 23, 2018 [60 favorites]
So we meet up, and my date tells me that she's recently been going to the gym, and could we maybe have a salad-eating contest instead? OK, sure, I reply. So we find a Thai restaurant, sit down, and order two salads. Once the salads arrive, she looks at me with an "are we really actually doing this ridiculous stunt" look and I return with a "what kind of charlatan do you take me for" look and, after I count down from 3, we dive - hands-free - into our salads.
It should be noted that there was a family of four celebrating the graduation of their eldest son at the table next to us.
After we finished - I won, due to my, uh, more intense commitment to the act - the waiter came over and asked it we wanted anything else. We ordered curry, to which the waiter responded with an agonized look. "Oh!" I replied, reassuringly, "we're going to use utensils."
Who knows now how such shenanigans will be arranged? RIP, CL personals.
posted by grumpybear69 at 2:10 PM on March 23, 2018 [60 favorites]
Ochschwar- can you post a link on this effort to outlaw prostitution in the Netherlands, and it's parliamentary status? All of the articles I'm finding are on the continuing legality of prostitution in the Netherlands, or the defeat of anti-prostitution measures.
Is it passed, in committee, pending? Is it municipal, provincial, or at the Federation level?
posted by LeRoienJaune at 2:11 PM on March 23, 2018 [4 favorites]
Is it passed, in committee, pending? Is it municipal, provincial, or at the Federation level?
posted by LeRoienJaune at 2:11 PM on March 23, 2018 [4 favorites]
Prostitution is always banned in Holland. Voluntary sex work is legal and pimping was legal for a while, but I think is banned again now or there so big push to ban it a few months ago.
Sex work is not banned yet but there is strong push to do so if it's not much, much more regulated with enforced registration and other measures which have been resisted for years because its a big business. Simple measures to protect women (and men) are not available to police or cannot be enforced. Recently the government seems to be taking it more seriously, maybe because of reports Dutch girls are also being coerced into the sex trade.
The truth that everyone knows is that so many very beautiful, very young eastern European women would not voluntarily come to Holland to do sex work each year. Everyone knows there is coercion but the government does not even require a registry!. Voluntary sex workers are fine but the trafficking has to stop. There was a big court case in the European court of human rights last year that will help change things I hope.
posted by fshgrl at 2:26 PM on March 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
Sex work is not banned yet but there is strong push to do so if it's not much, much more regulated with enforced registration and other measures which have been resisted for years because its a big business. Simple measures to protect women (and men) are not available to police or cannot be enforced. Recently the government seems to be taking it more seriously, maybe because of reports Dutch girls are also being coerced into the sex trade.
The truth that everyone knows is that so many very beautiful, very young eastern European women would not voluntarily come to Holland to do sex work each year. Everyone knows there is coercion but the government does not even require a registry!. Voluntary sex workers are fine but the trafficking has to stop. There was a big court case in the European court of human rights last year that will help change things I hope.
posted by fshgrl at 2:26 PM on March 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
grumpybear69, please tell me there was a second date. Or better yet, that she's now your wife.
posted by holborne at 2:48 PM on March 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by holborne at 2:48 PM on March 23, 2018 [3 favorites]
Surprisingly, my biggest problem with this bill is not what it does. What it does is poorly done at best, horrific at worst. Many people with more experience than I can speak to that.
No. My biggest problem is that is applies retroactively, *ex post facto*, and that is super horrible for every citizen.
Section 4(b)
(b) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and the amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply regardless of whether the conduct alleged occurred, or is alleged to have occurred, before, on, or after such date of enactment.
The US Department of Justice said "oh by the way, totally illegal." (Not an actual quote, maybe it should have been. Here is their public brief, bottom of page 2.)
To be clear: simply deleting the newly-illegal things from your website doesn't change the liability here. If some State AG wanted to go over the top, they could shut down every single site that had personal sections that were ever used in the way said State AG does not like.
posted by andreaazure at 2:49 PM on March 23, 2018 [8 favorites]
No. My biggest problem is that is applies retroactively, *ex post facto*, and that is super horrible for every citizen.
Section 4(b)
(b) Effective date.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and the amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply regardless of whether the conduct alleged occurred, or is alleged to have occurred, before, on, or after such date of enactment.
The US Department of Justice said "oh by the way, totally illegal." (Not an actual quote, maybe it should have been. Here is their public brief, bottom of page 2.)
To be clear: simply deleting the newly-illegal things from your website doesn't change the liability here. If some State AG wanted to go over the top, they could shut down every single site that had personal sections that were ever used in the way said State AG does not like.
posted by andreaazure at 2:49 PM on March 23, 2018 [8 favorites]
The truth that everyone knows is that so many very beautiful, very young eastern European women would not voluntarily come to Holland to do sex work each year. Everyone knows there is coercion but the government does not even require a registry!. Voluntary sex workers are fine but the trafficking has to stop. There was a big court case in the European court of human rights last year that will help change things I hope.
The ugly truth of legalization is that thus far it appears trafficking goes up in countries with legalized prostitution--not down. Which makes sense: if you're a human trafficker, you're going to pick the places where it's easiest to ply your trade. Things are not as simple as "legalize sex work and then the abuse stops" because coercion is so damn easy. I think if we had a test case country where you could point to legalized sex work with policies in place that prevented the trafficking/coercion side of things then you might not have quite so many skeptics, but right now there are plenty of reasons to be leery of blanket legalization outside of "sex is bad and women are bad".
Sex workers demonstrably need a way to be able to screen clientèle and have a way to seek protection and legal recourse for abusive ones. But it's not as popular to acknowledge that legalization of sex work is not to human trafficking what legalization of drugs is to drug abuse and crime; historically there are serious, negative consequences for trafficking victims in a way there isn't for the latter.
Which is not me defending this stupid, stupid bill, which was passed mostly by the sort of ignorant mostly-old politicians who think the Internet is a series of tubes.
posted by Anonymous at 4:23 PM on March 23, 2018
The ugly truth of legalization is that thus far it appears trafficking goes up in countries with legalized prostitution--not down. Which makes sense: if you're a human trafficker, you're going to pick the places where it's easiest to ply your trade. Things are not as simple as "legalize sex work and then the abuse stops" because coercion is so damn easy. I think if we had a test case country where you could point to legalized sex work with policies in place that prevented the trafficking/coercion side of things then you might not have quite so many skeptics, but right now there are plenty of reasons to be leery of blanket legalization outside of "sex is bad and women are bad".
Sex workers demonstrably need a way to be able to screen clientèle and have a way to seek protection and legal recourse for abusive ones. But it's not as popular to acknowledge that legalization of sex work is not to human trafficking what legalization of drugs is to drug abuse and crime; historically there are serious, negative consequences for trafficking victims in a way there isn't for the latter.
Which is not me defending this stupid, stupid bill, which was passed mostly by the sort of ignorant mostly-old politicians who think the Internet is a series of tubes.
posted by Anonymous at 4:23 PM on March 23, 2018
Related: there should be screeners to ensure minimum levels of technical competency in computers before you're allowed to serve in public office.
posted by Anonymous at 4:25 PM on March 23, 2018
posted by Anonymous at 4:25 PM on March 23, 2018
Thank you, fshgrl; that's very helpful.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 5:55 PM on March 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 5:55 PM on March 23, 2018 [2 favorites]
Hey! More regulation of the sex industry sounds like a good idea, unless you're listening to sex worker unions, collectives and networks all around the world who, along with Amnesty International, the UN and the WHO, call for the decriminalisation (not legalisation) of sex work. Why? Decriminalisation - the removal of laws and policies criminalising or penalising sex work - means sex workers can access health and social services, can unionise, and report violence and trafficking to the police without fear of reprisals, persecution or prosecution. The state of NSW, Australia, decriminalised sex work in 1995 because of endemic police profiteering in the sex industry. An independent study in 2012 found there had been a dramatic reduction in coercion and exploitation of sex workers, as well as increased health outcomes ("Sex work in NSW: healthiest in the world": "'Is there still a ragged edge to the NSW sex industry? Of course, but the size of that ragged edge is much smaller than anywhere else,' Professor Donovan said.")
Decriminalisation also helps people who have been trafficked into the sex industry. You know who is the most likely person to come into contact with a trafficked sex worker, who may not be able to leave the building they are working in and who has had their passport taken away? A client. You know what would make a client more likely to report to the police their suspicion that someone has been trafficked? No fear of criminal charges or personal reprisals. Legal empowerment of sex workers also helps effective HIV response.
posted by trotzdem_kunst at 3:12 AM on March 24, 2018 [15 favorites]
Decriminalisation also helps people who have been trafficked into the sex industry. You know who is the most likely person to come into contact with a trafficked sex worker, who may not be able to leave the building they are working in and who has had their passport taken away? A client. You know what would make a client more likely to report to the police their suspicion that someone has been trafficked? No fear of criminal charges or personal reprisals. Legal empowerment of sex workers also helps effective HIV response.
posted by trotzdem_kunst at 3:12 AM on March 24, 2018 [15 favorites]
When will they start closing down the slavers called "Student loan" companies? They advertise all over, yet no one shuts THEM down.
posted by Goofyy at 5:54 AM on March 24, 2018
posted by Goofyy at 5:54 AM on March 24, 2018
But....but....
The Republicans said regulation was BAD!
It is curious that I only got around to looking at this Craigslist thing in the last couple weeks. (i was living abroad). I'll tell you, there are a lot of vulnerable people on there, trying to cope with life as outsiders. Or even horrifically lonely, unwell, disabled, old...
This will effect suicide rates if this is not fixed.<<<< !!!
Mind, I'm more puzzled how my free speech and pursuit of happiness don't enter this equation. Especially given how targeted this is at religious notions of morality. I don't care how they disguise it. The facts bare me out.
posted by Goofyy at 6:05 AM on March 24, 2018 [2 favorites]
The Republicans said regulation was BAD!
It is curious that I only got around to looking at this Craigslist thing in the last couple weeks. (i was living abroad). I'll tell you, there are a lot of vulnerable people on there, trying to cope with life as outsiders. Or even horrifically lonely, unwell, disabled, old...
This will effect suicide rates if this is not fixed.<<<< !!!
Mind, I'm more puzzled how my free speech and pursuit of happiness don't enter this equation. Especially given how targeted this is at religious notions of morality. I don't care how they disguise it. The facts bare me out.
posted by Goofyy at 6:05 AM on March 24, 2018 [2 favorites]
Don't you smell the love of fascism in the morning?
posted by cmastro at 10:34 AM on March 24, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by cmastro at 10:34 AM on March 24, 2018 [1 favorite]
Oh wow, I didn't see that this got posted here yesterday. I'd better pour another cup of coffee; this might take a while.
Quick disclaimer: While I do work for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, this comment represents my views alone.
Since the original bill was first introduced in the Senate in August, I've been working around the clock trying to kill it. We built a website, stopsesta.org, and have been directing tens of thousands of calls to Congress since then. You might recognize one of the names on that site; MeFi's Own Josh Millard was one of our spokespeople.
There was one big problem, though: the words "sex trafficking." Those words made people afraid to speak up. They made notable people who you might have expected to speak up go quiet. I've built quite a collection of "No thanks, maybe next time around" emails from civil liberties advocates. Maybe I should frame them.
And as for the people on "our side"--the people who'd fought to defend Section 230 in the past--when the time came to speak up--when members of Congress were directly asking them what was wrong with the bill--they kept curbing, they kept "both sides"ing.
And a big part of the reason "our side" kept losing is because some people on it set really lopsided rules of engagement. No referencing the substantial body of literature explaining why these bills are precisely the wrong approach, why shutting down websites where sex work takes place costs the lives of trafficking victims. No bringing those real trafficking experts to the briefing meetings. So the false claims of the fundamentalist groups pretending to be sex trafficking experts went largely uncontested.
I think that one part of that reluctance to truly engage with the issues came from a fear of turning the whole debate into a proxy debate over decriminalization of sex work. I want to be clear: I'm very personally sympathetic to calls for decriminalization. That said, you don't have to win that fight in order to win this one. No matter what your opinion of sex work in general, you can recognize the danger that comes with pushing sex workers--including those who are being trafficked--off of the Internet and onto the street (PDF). I've had this discussion with the most evangelical conservatives you can imagine, and at the end of the discussion, those evangelical conservatives called their Senators.
But the thing is, you have to actually have that conversation. Otherwise, you lose. You don't beat sex trafficking rhetoric with economic arguments. It's worth noting that nearly all of the mainstream press these bills have gotten has been in the last month. And it's been almost entirely fueled by the outcry from sex workers and their allies. Look at the articles linked above. I get a one-sentence quote in a couple of them, but I'm not the focus. Nor should I be.
The first big turning point in the debate was when the Internet Association endorsed SESTA. In the eyes of the media and most lawmakers, it was over then. Tech is behind the bill; what are those weirdos at EFF fussing about?
Which goes to the bigger problem. The borders are being redrawn in digital civil liberties issues, and it's happening very fast. For most of the past 20 years, lawmakers have essentially treated big Internet companies as the voice of the Internet. And for a long time, that kinda sorta worked. Protections like Section 230 and DMCA 512 meant that tech companies' bottom lines went hand-in-hand with their users' right to speak and gather online.
Now, some of the big tech companies have a vested interest in severing that connection. Facebook and Twitter have big enough budgets to employ thousands of people to police their posts, but startups can't come close. SESTA is about pulling up the ladder, and you're already seeing the impact on places like Craigslist and niche dating sites.
The big tech companies are terrified of what comes next. They're terrified of a massive rollback of safe harbor protections, fueled by propaganda rhetoric on the left and terrorism rhetoric on the right. And they'll throw as many people under the bus to satisfy Congress as they have to. There have been a lot of rumors going around about the politics behind the IA endorsement. I don't have any inside information, but a lot of those rumors essentially amount to, Congress said it's either this or something much worse.
The second turning point was when the House Judiciary Committee unveiled FOSTA 2.0, its alternative bill. This bill was more narrowly tailored--it wouldn't directly affect nearly as many web platforms. But it threw sex workers much more directly under the bus. So it was so weird when people in the tech community--a lot of those same people who had been so careful to curb in their statements on SESTA--started endorsing and actively lobbying for the bill.
As I said in my postmortem, they should have known it was a trap. The popular narrative in Congress was that everyone either endorsed one bill or the other--or in the case of the Internet Association, both. I actually had some reporters ask me which bill EFF was going to endorse. "Neither" was no longer an acceptable position.
That's how we lost.
posted by roll truck roll at 12:10 PM on March 24, 2018 [34 favorites]
Quick disclaimer: While I do work for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, this comment represents my views alone.
Since the original bill was first introduced in the Senate in August, I've been working around the clock trying to kill it. We built a website, stopsesta.org, and have been directing tens of thousands of calls to Congress since then. You might recognize one of the names on that site; MeFi's Own Josh Millard was one of our spokespeople.
There was one big problem, though: the words "sex trafficking." Those words made people afraid to speak up. They made notable people who you might have expected to speak up go quiet. I've built quite a collection of "No thanks, maybe next time around" emails from civil liberties advocates. Maybe I should frame them.
And as for the people on "our side"--the people who'd fought to defend Section 230 in the past--when the time came to speak up--when members of Congress were directly asking them what was wrong with the bill--they kept curbing, they kept "both sides"ing.
And a big part of the reason "our side" kept losing is because some people on it set really lopsided rules of engagement. No referencing the substantial body of literature explaining why these bills are precisely the wrong approach, why shutting down websites where sex work takes place costs the lives of trafficking victims. No bringing those real trafficking experts to the briefing meetings. So the false claims of the fundamentalist groups pretending to be sex trafficking experts went largely uncontested.
I think that one part of that reluctance to truly engage with the issues came from a fear of turning the whole debate into a proxy debate over decriminalization of sex work. I want to be clear: I'm very personally sympathetic to calls for decriminalization. That said, you don't have to win that fight in order to win this one. No matter what your opinion of sex work in general, you can recognize the danger that comes with pushing sex workers--including those who are being trafficked--off of the Internet and onto the street (PDF). I've had this discussion with the most evangelical conservatives you can imagine, and at the end of the discussion, those evangelical conservatives called their Senators.
But the thing is, you have to actually have that conversation. Otherwise, you lose. You don't beat sex trafficking rhetoric with economic arguments. It's worth noting that nearly all of the mainstream press these bills have gotten has been in the last month. And it's been almost entirely fueled by the outcry from sex workers and their allies. Look at the articles linked above. I get a one-sentence quote in a couple of them, but I'm not the focus. Nor should I be.
The first big turning point in the debate was when the Internet Association endorsed SESTA. In the eyes of the media and most lawmakers, it was over then. Tech is behind the bill; what are those weirdos at EFF fussing about?
Which goes to the bigger problem. The borders are being redrawn in digital civil liberties issues, and it's happening very fast. For most of the past 20 years, lawmakers have essentially treated big Internet companies as the voice of the Internet. And for a long time, that kinda sorta worked. Protections like Section 230 and DMCA 512 meant that tech companies' bottom lines went hand-in-hand with their users' right to speak and gather online.
Now, some of the big tech companies have a vested interest in severing that connection. Facebook and Twitter have big enough budgets to employ thousands of people to police their posts, but startups can't come close. SESTA is about pulling up the ladder, and you're already seeing the impact on places like Craigslist and niche dating sites.
The big tech companies are terrified of what comes next. They're terrified of a massive rollback of safe harbor protections, fueled by propaganda rhetoric on the left and terrorism rhetoric on the right. And they'll throw as many people under the bus to satisfy Congress as they have to. There have been a lot of rumors going around about the politics behind the IA endorsement. I don't have any inside information, but a lot of those rumors essentially amount to, Congress said it's either this or something much worse.
The second turning point was when the House Judiciary Committee unveiled FOSTA 2.0, its alternative bill. This bill was more narrowly tailored--it wouldn't directly affect nearly as many web platforms. But it threw sex workers much more directly under the bus. So it was so weird when people in the tech community--a lot of those same people who had been so careful to curb in their statements on SESTA--started endorsing and actively lobbying for the bill.
As I said in my postmortem, they should have known it was a trap. The popular narrative in Congress was that everyone either endorsed one bill or the other--or in the case of the Internet Association, both. I actually had some reporters ask me which bill EFF was going to endorse. "Neither" was no longer an acceptable position.
That's how we lost.
posted by roll truck roll at 12:10 PM on March 24, 2018 [34 favorites]
Thanks for your perspective roll truck roll. I was pretty surprised that reddit made their rule change without referencing SESTA/FOSTA at all. Now it makes a lot more sense.
posted by muddgirl at 3:55 PM on March 24, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by muddgirl at 3:55 PM on March 24, 2018 [2 favorites]
So is IRL on the chopping block?
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:39 PM on March 24, 2018
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:39 PM on March 24, 2018
"Missed connections" seems to still exist! Under the "community" heading now.
posted by materialgirl at 9:30 AM on March 25, 2018
posted by materialgirl at 9:30 AM on March 25, 2018
Trump signs bill to shut down websites that facilitate prostitution -- FOSTA becomes law—sex work forums were already shutting down to prepare. (Jon Brodkin for Ars Technica, April 11, 2018)
One of the sections of this article is titled "Law equates trafficking and prostitution" -- and following much of the discussion here, that says it all. For any good that might come from this for human trafficking, there's also a good amount of bad for sex workers.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:05 PM on April 11, 2018 [2 favorites]
One of the sections of this article is titled "Law equates trafficking and prostitution" -- and following much of the discussion here, that says it all. For any good that might come from this for human trafficking, there's also a good amount of bad for sex workers.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:05 PM on April 11, 2018 [2 favorites]
« Older Mack the Beeb | Hyping one thing after the other Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:06 AM on March 23, 2018