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

Shauni · Mar 22, 2018

nintendoman58 said:
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.

I am not, and you know that is just total bullshit. Whatever, I'm not going to do this with you again. You're right, it's all fairy dust and magic. Everything will instantly be better once we have a Democratic government and the GOP will finally be vanquished for eternity. Right around the corner

nintendoman58 · Mar 22, 2018

Shauni said:
I am not, and you know that is just total bullshit. Whatever, I'm not going to do this with you again. You're right, it's all fairy dust and magic. Everything will instantly be better once we have a Democratic government and the GOP will finally be vanquished for eternity. Right around the corner

And that's not what I said at all. Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

You have not presented me with ANY facts that show that the Dems are not on the right side of the Net Neutrality debacle.

I have presented you with three. Laws in the states, the lawsuits against the FCC, and the CRA support.

What facts have you presented? You have not said anything that doesn't amount to speculation with no hardline proof.

At the end of the day it really all boils down to particularly who gets to be the new FCC chairman once a Dem becomes president. But remember that Tom Wheeler was also a cable lobbyist and he's the reason we had those rules due to the immense support for them by the public.

Creamie · Mar 22, 2018

A lot of what is going on is the people who make the laws don't understand how technology works and the ramifications it would have for communities.

Kthulhu · Mar 22, 2018

Creamie said:
A lot of what is going on is the people who make the laws don't understand how technology works and the ramifications it would have for communities.

This too. Gen Xrs and millennials cannot get into office soon enough.

Obama was a huge step forward, hopefully we see more politicians that understand.

yogurt · Mar 22, 2018

Suiko said:
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.

I'm inclined to agree. It will take years or decades of litigation to work out what such a broadly worded law actually applies to, and ultimately it probably won't end up affecting 99% of the stuff alarmist folks are worrying about.

That's not to say that this bill isn't flawed, it is. But how many of these panics have we had over the past 10 years?

Invisible Cities · Mar 22, 2018

On paper, it sounds good that sites should be liable for what they host, even if user-created.

Trey · Mar 22, 2018

I'm surprised I haven't seen any push back from the huge tech companies, specifically the social media giants.

TheRuralJuror · Mar 22, 2018

Trey said:
I'm surprised I haven't seen any push back from the huge tech companies, specifically the social media giants.

There was initially I believe.

Deleted member 1476 · Mar 22, 2018

Trey said:
I'm surprised I haven't seen any push back from the huge tech companies, specifically the social media giants.

They did at first, but then after a small change they let it slide. One of the articles in the OP explains why maybe they let that happen:

The biggest Silicon Valley companies, which seem to have ultimately accepted this legislation as inevitable, have an advantage that smaller companies won't. They're able to turn to high-priced lawyers to stave off the lawsuits that will likely ensue. They're also capable of implementing complex algorithms to monitor their services that a little guy wouldn't necessarily have access to. This is how SESTA could stifle innovation: The pseudo-monopolies will survive, but new competitors could be priced out or discouraged from entering the arena. Longtime internet activist Mike Godwin used this analogy:

They'd likely face the hard choice of either supercensorship (yank anything users say or post that seems even remotely likely to pose legal risk) or just abandoning the startup project altogether. (Internet-law experts refer to this as "the moderator's dilemma.") A would-be Facebook killer wouldn't be able to compete by being a better Facebook—the best it could aim for is to be a better Prodigy. Prodigy, the original "walled garden" of online services, was an early competitor among online companies, with its forums highly moderated by its staff—you couldn't post your content publicly on the service without subjecting your postings to screening by Prodigy editors. Unsurprisingly, Prodigy in its original form didn't do well in the long run competing initially with more open, less moderated services like AOL and CompuServe or, ultimately, with the offerings of the wide-open internet itself.

sersteven · Mar 22, 2018

Invisible Cities said:
On paper, it sounds good that sites should be liable for what they host, even if user-created.

I understand what you mean, but let's say some trolls make accounts on Resetera, and because of its leanings, decide to false flag it and post illegal sexual content or illegal threats in a private message to one another. They can even namedrop other users or establish themselves into the communities for awhile to make it look legitimate. Then Resetera is hit, and closed, all because two private conversations between users no one even knew about. Not just that, but the owners could find themselves labeled sex predators or fined thousands of dollars for content they never even were able to curate since its hidden behind privacy settings sites themselves promise users.
So to curtail this, what, do sites and forums start reading through users private messages/contents? Or leave themselves open to disastrous outcomes?

I can easily see this being weaponized in awful ways in our current era. We already have the largest social websites in the world like Facebook being compromised by foreign actors.

This is scary and doesn't just breach tons of common privacy concerns, but it could also be used to purposefully damage and destroy communities from the inside.

collige · Mar 22, 2018

Shameful. Even if this wasn't a mess for the effect it has on the internet, it should still have been voted down because of its negative effects on sex workers.

Invisible Cities said:
On paper, it sounds good that sites should be liable for what they host, even if user-created.

Not really. It's the online equivalent of holding FedEx responsible for the Austin bombings.

captive · Mar 22, 2018

Jam said:
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.'

Not that this happened to me. But a friend posted about this and I asked how what we have now is ineffective for prosecuting website owners for sex trafficking, like backpage. The response I got back was a huge emotional appeal about how the average age of victims of sex trafficking is 14 and how the government hasn't been successful against backpage. To be clear to my knowledge the trails havnt even started against thr owners of backpage.

thefit · Mar 22, 2018

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 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.

Exactly. The internet was given free range to expand under the promise that it would self regulate itself and it has failed in some pretty abhorrent ways. The EFF didn't input anything because they want no regulation they want to keep it the way it is with with child porn and child sex exploitation and everything else terrible intact they don't want to budge on the Libertarian Utopian bullshit the internet peddles. They are afraid of the worst of the worst anonymous shitheads causing the site owners to be liable yet they refuse to come up with solutions as simple as banning these types of people because "free speech" or some other bullshit excuse, well that kind of thinking leads to getting regulated which is where we are. The solutions already exist in the real world, where in the real world can't you walk into a business and purchase, solicit the terrible shit that goes online. You can't because the real world has years of regulations and laws, that ban, restrict, regulate and ostracize a lot of what goes on online. In other words if its something that you wouldn't want in real life then it had no business springing up online and allowed to thrive while being hosted with no repercussions to the domain owner. Now some will argue that that's too broad and that is where the courts come in and take a case by case approach like it should be.

sersteven · Mar 22, 2018

thefit said:
Exactly. The internet was given free range to expand under the promise that it would self regulate itself and it has failed in some pretty abhorrent ways. The EFF didn't input anything because they want no regulation they want to keep it the way it is with with child porn and child sex exploitation and everything else terrible intact they don't want to budge on the Libertarian Utopian bullshit the internet peddles. They are afraid of the worst of the worst anonymous shitheads causing the site owners to be liable yet they refuse to come up with solutions as simple as banning these types of people because "free speech" or some other bullshit excuse, well that kind of thinking leads to getting regulated which is where we are. The solutions already exist in the real world, where in the real world can't you walk into a business and purchase, solicit the terrible shit that goes online? You can't because the real world has years of regulations and laws, that ban, restrict, regulate and ostracize a lot of what goes on online. In other words if its something that you wouldn't want in real life then it had no business springing up online and allowed to thrive while being hosted with no repercussions to the domain owner. Now some will argue that that's too broad and that is where the courts come in and take a case by case approach like it should be.

If you read the Slate article they actually talk about how many internet advocates and professionals were pretty okay with one of the previous iterations of FOSTA, which were more refined to require a jury to find intent to foster or shelter those types of actions as criminal.

So this seems a bit more complex than you guys are alluding to. I even agree that many internet freedom advocates are a little too anarchist for my liking, but you definitely can't say that there aren't lobbyists and anti-internet politicans fighting for restricted rights right now, especially after the past few years of things like PIPA/SOPA/other legitimately damaging bills being brought up with the express intent to neuter internet freedoms and expand on corporate reach.

kyorii · Mar 22, 2018

So apparently Craigslist took down their personnel ads section in fear as well. Is Online Dating in danger now? Kinda cracks me up how horribly broad the language is.

Flo_Evans · Mar 22, 2018

Can't even get hookers on Craigslist anymore. I thought this was America.

kyorii · Mar 23, 2018

I know it was kind of joked prior about how its leading to banning porn but it really looks like its moving that direction.

From other media out there:

Motherboard reported today that at least six porn performers have complained that files have been blocked without warning from Google's cloud storage service.

"It seems like all of our videos in Google Drive are getting flagged by some sort of automated system," adult star Lilly Stone told Motherboard. "We're not even really getting notified of it, the only way we really found out was one of our customers told us he couldn't view or download the video we sent him."

Another adult star, Avey Moon was trying to send the winner of her Chaturbate contest his prize — a video titled "POV Blowjob" — through her Google Drive account, but it wouldn't send.

"I thought there was something wrong with my file and I got rather worried," Moon told Motherboard. "I had promised this guy his content and he was so good to me. I was panicked because I thought if I couldn't give him his prize, he would feel like he got ripped off and never come back again or worse, he could actually file a complaint with Chaturbate about me and they can take money from me."

"I heard randomly that someone got one piece of their adult content flagged, that was stored on Google Drive," adult performer Melody Kush said.

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

User requested account closure