• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

SESTA passes Senate 97-2 (Wyden, Paul no's)

kyorii

kyorii

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,991
Splatlandia
I'm surprised no ones posted about this. The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 (SESTA) are bills meant combat online sex trafficking, but will actually infringe upon online freedom of speech and start moving internet protections in a different direction.



For more on SESTA

https://slate.com/technology/2018/0...-bill-sesta-fosta-will-hurt-the-internet.html

https://medium.com/@EngineOrg/myth-vs-fact-what-you-need-to-know-about-sesta-fosta-850e74f3b8c4

https://gizmodo.com/senate-passes-sesta-controversial-anti-sex-trafficking-1823916411
 
Ionic

Ionic

Member
Oct 31, 2017
2,735
I really wish bills were just assigned a number instead of given misleading, manipulative titles.
 

Deleted member 4021

Oct 25, 2017
1,707
Any bill that is so widely bi-partisan is almost inevitably utter garbage that screws all of us over.
 
bsigg

bsigg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,653
Jesus fucking Christ

From the Slate article linked to above.

But the legislative language is written broadly enough to reach online services that aren't classified-ad platforms of any sort—it appears to apply to public and private online forums and even emails and direct messages.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This can and will get ugly really quick.
 
jph139

jph139

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,450
So, as a hypothetical: ResetERA could be held liable for any posts or conversations being held on the site? Even in private? Like, if two users (in private messages) spoke about doing something illegal, the website would be liable for facilitating their discussion? That's my reading from those articles.

That's the sort of bullshit that will tank a ton of places. Totally wrongheaded. Not surprised it got unanimous congressional support.
 
Suiko

Suiko

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,931
Much of this will have to be tested in court, as would any bill that would attempt to address this.
I don't think this will be anywhere near the big deal some people are currently making it.
 
bsigg

bsigg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,653
jph139 said:
So, as a hypothetical: ResetERA could be held liable for any posts or conversations being held on the site? Even in private? Like, if two users (in private messages) spoke about doing something illegal, the website would be liable for facilitating their discussion? That's my reading from those articles.

That's the sort of bullshit that will tank a ton of places. Totally wrongheaded. Not surprised it got unanimous congressional support.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes. Which makes the Reddit banning a bunch of subreddits today make tons more sense.
 
Nelo Ice

Nelo Ice

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,463
Surprised I'm just learning about this now. SMH at all the Dems voting for this fuckery.
 
Shauni

Shauni

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,728
Christ the more I read about this, the worst it sounds. And it was near universal support. The only hope is this gets struck done in court. But I doubt it will.

Hope this wakes some people up to what I was just trying to say about net neutrality going away. Getting a Democratic government will not guarantee it will come back, almost every Democrat voted for this.
 
thefit

thefit

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,243
This is why you are seeing reddit etc ban controversial stuff because they may be liable for shitheads and their shithead posts/threads.
 
thefit

thefit

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,243
The Wild West Internet is nearing and end. They are pining this on under age sex trafficking but the real culprits are the owners of the websites and social media that refused to moderate.
 
Suiko

Suiko

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,931
Shauni said:
And if it passes the Court's?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's not that simple, various real life situations will eventually be tried under new law, and the courts will determine how that will proceed based on that law and the constitution.

thefit said:
The Wild West Internet is nearing and end. They are pining this on under age sex trafficking but the real culprits are the owners of the websites and social media that refused to moderate.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's remarkable it took this long.

Anyone who seriously expected the ability for site owners to continue to absolve themselves from any responsibility of what users who use their websites for in perpetuity... well, i'm not sure what universe you were living in. The pendulum will now start swinging the other way, it's up to us to make sure it does not swing too far.

/r/shoplifting is like the perfect microcosm of this mindset, and the whole situation basically existed cause of libertopian nutcases in Silicon Valley.
 
Last edited:
nintendoman58

nintendoman58

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,122
Shauni said:
Christ the more I read about this, the worst it sounds. And it was near universal support. The only hope is this gets struck done in court. But I doubt it will.

Hope this wakes some people up to what I was just trying to say about net neutrality going away. Getting a Democratic government will not guarantee it will come back, almost every Democrat voted for this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't see what this has to do with Net Neutrality. If the bad stuff about this particular bill is as bad as it sounds, it's very possible parts of it may get struck down in court.

But that aside, Net Neutrality is an extremely popular issue with the left. You need look no further than the fact that over half the states are suing the repeal in court and are proposing their own legislation for their own NN laws (some of which have already passed and are in effect now).

The only way I don't see a Dem FCC reinstating NN would be if the Blue Wave hits hard enough for even more states to implement their own rules. I could see the reasoning there being: "Well, a good majority of the states have their own NN laws now, so I don't see how it's needed".

Yeah, there's no guarantee but it's a lot more likely than you think if you look at what's happening everywhere else. Yeah almost every Democrat voted for this, but every Democrat also wants to vote to use the CRA to reinstate the rules.
 
darkwing

darkwing

Corrupted by Vengeance
Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,089
wow reading the bill content, its a slippery slope, it's a devious disguised bill
 
sangreal

sangreal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,890
Garbage law that most congressmen probably didn't read past the title

To be clear, it's garbage for its intended purpose even without any slippery slope scare-mongering. Which they would know if they bothered to ask Sex Workers for their input
 
Last edited:
Shauni

Shauni

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,728
nintendoman58 said:
I don't see what this has to do with Net Neutrality. If the bad stuff about this particular bill is as bad as it sounds, it's very possible parts of it may get struck down in court.

But that aside, Net Neutrality is an extremely popular issue with the left. You need look no further than the fact that over half the states are suing the repeal in court and are proposing their own legislation for their own NN laws (some of which have already passed and are in effect now).

The only way I don't see a Dem FCC reinstating NN would be if the Blue Wave hits hard enough for even more states to implement their own rules. I could see the reasoning there being: "Well, a good majority of the states have their own NN laws now, so I don't see how it's needed".

Yeah, there's no guarantee but it's a lot more likely than you think if you look at what's happening everywhere else. Yeah almost every Democrat voted for this, but every Democrat also wants to vote to use the CRA to reinstate the rules.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Once rights are taken away, they are rarely given back without blood being spilt.
 
Sulik2

Sulik2

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,168
On the one hand, safe harbor provisions are really important for the internet to be able to work at all. On the other hand I actually think the lack of moderation on the internet has become a liability to the continued functioning of civilization. I just sure as hell don't trust the US Gov to be sane in applying these new abilities.
 
Jam

Jam

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,061
Yeah, there is no way to defend voting against this in the current climate. Sneaking this shit in through protective legislation is despicable.

'I voted no to protect freedom of speech on the Internet.'

'SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS YOU SUPPORT SEX TRAFFICKING YOU MONSTER.'
 
nintendoman58

nintendoman58

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,122
Shauni said:
Once rights are taken away, they are rarely given back without blood being spilt.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And blood kinda is being spilt? Are you not paying attention to just how huge of an issue the whole NN repeal was? Are you not paying attention to all the NN legislation proposed by the states and the massive court battle going on?

Do you really expect a future Dem FCC to not reinstate the rules because of some "once rights are taken they rarely come back" reasoning?

Come on now.
 
Shauni

Shauni

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,728
nintendoman58 said:
And blood kinda is being spilt? Are you not paying attention to just how huge of an issue the whole NN repeal was? Are you not paying attention to all the NN legislation proposed by the states and the massive court battle going on?

Do you really expect a future Dem FCC to not reinstate the rules because of some "once rights are taken they rarely come back" reasoning?

Come on now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Where is blood being spilled? Are you kidding right now?
 
nintendoman58

nintendoman58

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,122
Shauni said:
Where is blood being spilled? Are you kidding right now?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm talking about the sheer amount of vocal rage that occurred when the repeal was going through. From the comment process to the actual vote.

Here's all the facts that show Dems are on the right side of the matter here:

- Many liberal states have proposed their own NN legislation and some have already passed it.

- Every Dem Senator is on board for voting to use the CRA to reverse the repeal.

- That coalition of states wanting to make their own rules is also joining in on the lawsuit against the FCC.

Even with all these facts, you seriously still think a Dem FCC won't do anything about Net Neutrality when they're in control again?
 
Shauni

Shauni

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,728
nintendoman58 said:
I'm talking about the sheer amount of vocal rage that occurred when the repeal was going through. From the comment process to the actual vote.

Here's all the facts that show Dems are on the right side of the matter here:

- Many liberal states have proposed their own NN legislation and some have already passed it.

- Every Dem Senator is on board for voting to use the CRA to reverse the repeal.

- That coalition of states wanting to make their own rules is also joining in on the lawsuit against the FCC.

Even with all these facts, you seriously still think a Dem FCC won't do anything about Net Neutrality when they're in control again?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

...That's not blood being spilled.

But regardless, we also have a bill being passed with near universal support from Democrats that flies in the face of NN. It's not nearly as sure a thing as you think it is.
 

Deleted member 8860

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
6,525
So, how would you have modified the safe harbor provisions that let Backpage get away with blatant child sex trafficking for decades?

What language would be narrow enough to stop that but not alarm you as free speech advocates? The EFF had plenty of time and opportunity to propose such language, but declined to do so, instead stating that Backpage was in the right.
 
Last edited:
nintendoman58

nintendoman58

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,122
Shauni said:
...That's not blood being spilled.

But regardless, we also have a bill being passed with near universal support from Democrats that flies in the face of NN. It's not nearly as sure a thing as you think it is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I was speaking metaphorically...

On the strict terms that is Net Neutrality, it kinda is a sure thing. Okay yeah, nothing in life is a 100% guarantee, but by looking at the facts it's hard to see how they won't after all the support they're showing it. I see absolutely no reason why a Dem FCC will not re-instate Title II.
 

Deleted member 1088

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,759
Oh wow, Democrats are politicians as well that at their roots will look out for their best interest as politicians
O5b8L.gif
 
platocplx

platocplx

2020 Member Elect
Member
Oct 30, 2017
36,085
emag said:
So, how would you have modified the safe harbor provisions that let Backpage get away with blatant child sex trafficking for decades?

What language would be mature enough to stop that but not alarm you as free speech advocates? The EFF had plenty of time and opportunity to propose such language, but declined to do so, instead stating that Backpage was in the right.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah Id like to know peoples thoughts on site that are harboring illegal activities like that.
 
Shauni

Shauni

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,728
nintendoman58 said:
I was speaking metaphorically...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I was not

On the str terms that is Net Neutrality, it kinda is a sure thing. Okay yeah, nothing in life is a 100% guarantee, but by looking at the facts it's hard to see how they won't after all the support they're showing it. I see absolutely no reason why a Dem FCC will not re-instate Title II.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No reason? It's like you don't even know what thread you're in.
 
Hollywood Duo

Hollywood Duo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
42,574
This is like the Patriot act all over again. Voting in horrible shit because of the optics of the name of the damn thing.
 
nintendoman58

nintendoman58

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,122
Shauni said:
No reason? It's like you don't even know what thread your in.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Except I do? This topic really doesn't have anything to do with Net Neutrality. This isn't about paid prioritization or whatnot.

The only reason I bring it up is because you're using this one specific instance as the main reason why a Dem FCC won't re-instate Title II.

You're not making any points in favor of your argument and just saying over and over about just how bad the Dems are.

The Dems are nowhere near perfect but they've made their stance on Net Neutrality explicitly clear.
 
Last edited:
Easy_D

Easy_D

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,275
Ron Paul said:
yep. In re-election campaigns, opponents could spin anyone who said "no" as "advocates of Sex trafficking". Politics is less about voting for good policies and more about job security unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Reminds me of the John Oliver gun control segment. When he asks the US politician what his job is he says it's to be re-elected. Without any hesitation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.