Slashdot Mirror
Trump Signs Law Weakening Shield For Online Services (vice.com)
President Donald Trump has signed a new law aimed at curbing sex trafficking. From a report: The bill -- a mashup of the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA), which is commonly referred to as the latter -- passed Congress in March. It makes websites liable for what users say and do on their platforms, and many advocacy groups have come out against the bill, saying that it undermines essential internet freedoms.
It could be months -- or as late as January 2019 -- before FOSTA is enacted and anyone could be charged under the law. But even in the days immediately after the bill passed in Congress, platforms started scrambling to proactively shut down forums or whole sites where sex trafficking could feasibly happen. Fringe dating websites, sex trade and advertising forums, and even portions of Craigslist were taken down in the weeks following, while companies like Google started strictly enforcing terms of service around sexual speech. Commenting on the development, EFF said, "As we've already seen, this bill silences online speech by forcing Internet platforms to censor their users."
It could be months -- or as late as January 2019 -- before FOSTA is enacted and anyone could be charged under the law. But even in the days immediately after the bill passed in Congress, platforms started scrambling to proactively shut down forums or whole sites where sex trafficking could feasibly happen. Fringe dating websites, sex trade and advertising forums, and even portions of Craigslist were taken down in the weeks following, while companies like Google started strictly enforcing terms of service around sexual speech. Commenting on the development, EFF said, "As we've already seen, this bill silences online speech by forcing Internet platforms to censor their users."
I for one can't wait until the politicians who approved this bill have users post links "illegal" sites and they get hauled off to jail.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Actually...
But if you don't care about freedom of speech, you're welcome to see yourself out.
If you're responsible for user-generated content, UGC is no longer a viable business model. Web 2.0 is dead.
Since everyone in Congress told us this bill was necessary to take down Backpage.com, are they going to after them now?
No wonder they're trying so hard to get rid of him.
If you hate this country and individual rights so much why not move to Bullshit Mountain?
Charges were unsealed and the people who run the site were arrested at the same time.
That was before the law was officially signed which tells you just how badly some people were wanting to take the site down.
I have to stop acting so sexy on slashdot ?
I don't think Slashdot knowingly assisted you in sex trafficking.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
And hope no one notices that the loudest agitators for "net neutrality" and a "free and open internet" have also been caught red-handed censoring perfectly legal user content they disagree with.
This is where Trump gets booted off of Twitter, right?
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
Which would have been sufficient under the old system. Under the new rules they can be held responsible if the government thinks they should have know about it and stopped it.
Trump can't stop #winning and Libby minds are going crazy! America gets greater every day thanks to Trump!
#covfefe #maga #trump2020
In the wake of this?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This would all be much simpler if we'd just legalize & regulate prostitution already.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
He should start by BIGLY limting his own use of PROSTITUTES.
I used to use backpage but now what?
Politicians typically do not host the servers themselves. The hosting companies will be on the hook.
Anyway, this kind of law does not apply to politicians. It is unfair, but it is how the world works and has always worked.
So, what went going on in Trump Hotels for the last decades? Bored 50-something men don't go to the casino only for the games and the steak house. Or wherever they go in vacation where's there's Trump hotels and estates. I can only imagine how many biatches, sluts and whores are hanging around there, waiting for the low class millionaires.
Trump's message is, don't do prostitutes and drugs on-line, do it the old fashioned way, in some beach or alley near your Trump resort, or just call room service.
Trump didn't act unilaterally this time. The bill passed in the Senate 97-2: https://www.democrats.senate.g...
As an afficionado of trolling attempts; this one caught my eye. Notice the playful way in which he's attempting to elicit a response by hitting the key points of "think of the children" and then accusing those who disagree of being zealots. Then by calling out founding father's and using a bit of .. what can only be called "psychic wizardry" to ascertain what a group of people who died 200 odd years ago were actually thinking (despite them being very, very clear in the phrasing) he's attempting to reel you in by basically saying: "Hey, i'm just like you - a patriotic American! This shouldn't be controversial!"
But then he sadly botches the landing with that last sentence. Hitting the 'think of the children' trope yet again, he ruins the craftsmanship of the previous sentences.
All in all, i'd give it a 5/10. Good potential though, keep it up!
So you're saying righties don't believe in the fundamental principles of our nation, and of the Bill of Rights?
You're saying righties are a bunch of cowardly fascists who have secret hard-ons for dictatorships?
It's ok. Any law that tangentially severely stifles speech has always been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Without picking a side, I'd like to point out the interesting dichotomy we have here.
On the one had, with regards to the Second Amendment, some people are more than willing to infringe on Rights when they believe the greater good would be served . Often making the argument that the Second is outdated, that the founders never saw Semiautomatic weapons coming, etc.
On the other hand, presumably those same people absolutely stand against a law the also arguably infringes on Free Speech rights and arguably for a purpose just as valid as their Second Amendment statements. After all, the Founding Fathers could never had imagined that a 12 year old girl could be purchased anywhere on the continent with the click of a button. (Ironically, 12 year old girls were practically marriage material back then.)
I guess a silver lining in all of this is that pretty much everyone will become acutely aware of the consequences of infringing on any of our Constitutional Rights, no matter how well intentioned.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Yeah - this will totally work.
Guvf jvyy gbgnyyl fbyir gur ceboyrz naq erqhpr genssvpxvat
They knew it was possible to post such a link and chose not to take reasonable precautions to prevent it. So, if it had included contact information or not been an AC post, that would constitute knowingly assisting in sex trafficking by providing a communications platform that doesn't prevent that usage.
We should not rely on prosecutorial discretion to protect us from unreasonable use of a law. In this case, even if the site uses AI-based censorship to protect itself from being used to coordinate a meeting with a prostitute and thus becoming a party to whatever happens in that meeting, the AI will miss carefully coded statements and it could be argued that a human reviewer would have caught it. Thus, no site is safe. So what happens when an administration is unhappy with a website for anything at all and pressures a prosecutor to enforce the law?
Even the Washington Post has a comment section. Can the moderator catch everything?
It's hard to stomach a law meant to curb bad sexual behavior signed by Mr. "Grab 'em by the pussy".
Now you anti-MAGA-fuckers will understand how censorship feels.
I've been contemplating how to relate this to the real world.
I think this is equivalent to being able to criminally and civilly charge a hotel chain if any prostitution occurs on their property that they didn't take measures to stop. They must then spy on all of their clients to at least try to be able to prove that they were taking reasonable steps to make sure that no prostitution is occurring on their property. Since that would be nearly impossible to perfectly perform, the only solution they'd have to be truly safe from any prosecution is to not allow any more than one person in a room at a time.
All of that leads me to question whether this law is an attempt to ban social discourse on the web because the only effective defense is to not allow more than one person in a conversation.
Who could have seen this coming, besides anyone who gave it a moment’s thought?
The new federal legislation that closed down Backpage.com "is creating an actual market for pimps."
WaPo reports on the unintended consequences of the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act.
According to The Guardian, the site allowed sex workers to screen potential online clients before meeting them in person. It was a simple layer of safety without resorting to pimps for protection. These deals, that were once handled online, will now be pushed back into the open streets, leaving women on their own to protect.
The Internet disintermediates. Take away the Internet, and you get re-intermediation.
You seem a bit dim, you missed the mockery/satire, you foolishly took the post literally.
It's going to be really funny when they have to shut down Twitter and the POTUS will have no way to communicate with the outside world.
You've always had to respond to users using your service for illegal activities otherwise you would be charged for facilitating them. What exactly has changed?
Our Craiglist personal pages work just fine. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to write a reply to a woman who only wants to go shopping at Holt Renfrew in exchange for me to experience her one hour bikini Jello wrestling in-call only services.
DaveyJJ
SCOTUS proved with the DC vs. Heller decision about the "well regulated militia" clause once and for all. If you don't like the 2A, campaign to have a Constitutional amendment made to repeal it.
Not really. The 2nd Amendment specifically refers to "a well-regulated militia".
In constitutional days well-regulated meant equipped and trained to an effective level, it did *not* mean having all your regulatory paperwork and permissions in order.
Also to this day by federal law the federal militia includes all able bodied male citizens age 18-45. There is no enlistment, no signup, no requirement to show up anywhere and train, you are in automatically. This is the "inactive" component component of the militia, the national guard is the "active" component of the militia. The national guard is not the entire militia. Armed citizens with no prior armed forces affiliation are also part of the federal militia.
Almost no other parts of the Constitution and Amendments include a rationale, so the only reasonable interpretation is that the rationale was included for a specific reason. It's no different than advocating for patent reform because one feels that the current system is not meeting the purpose explicitly given in the Constitution.
Armed citizens with no prior armed forces affiliation are also part of the federal militia. Hence the 2nd amendment being an individual right that supports the militia. And as others have pointed out the 2nd amendment has also been ruled an individual right with respect to self defense. Which also has a historical tie to the militia. In colonial/constitutional days the militia was not just used for military conflict, it could also be used to suppress riots, defend against and/or arrest bandits, etc.
No exceptions are enumerated, none shall be granted. "NO LAW" could not be more absolute. The 1st amendment is the only law on the whole planet written in such a fashion.
I hope the authoritarians are grateful that nobody objects when those exceptions are granted by the corrupt judges and courts.. But, being psychopaths, that is very doubtful.
And ultimately, it shows that words are truly meaningless and harmless, totally open to whimsical interpretation of the day.
Many advocacy groups have come out against the bill, saying that it undermines essential internet freedoms.
Of course it does. That's the fucking point.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
How FOSTA Could Give Hollywood the Filters It's Long Wanted
We can use this site to ask for sex
"Wanted to buy __ girl"
Further, his position implicitly argues that members of the "militia", all able bodied make citizens (let's throw in women these days), should actually be able to purchase M-16s and other military rifles.
FYI ... according to federal statue women must be in the national guard to be part of the militia.
There is some very old supreme court case when someone claimed their sawed off shotgun was legal because of the militia. The court ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not a militia weapon and thereby not protected by the second amendment. In light of this ruling an AR-15 ban may be unconstitutional since an AR-15 is about as close to a militia weapon as a civilian weapon can get.
People think this law effects only sections that allow for "personals" and "adult" type categories. Actually, this law is so vague it can be applied to any web site that has a comments section or allows a user to post a message. This means about 99.99% of every web site out there can potentially be shut down. Even this web site, if someone posts an ad about prostitution in the comments section, this web site owners are liable for that content.
I wonder if Slashdot would survive the Scientology manual being posted these days.
As I recall, it was the first time a post was actually deleted, here. Not sure how many more have been, since then, as I tend not to hang out in liberal cesspools.
Let's see... people are using the internet to 'date.' And somehow this is a really awful thing, so, I know what to do. Let's blame the websites! They look like nice rich folks who'll be able to fill lawyer pockets with cash to fight this.
I notice a lot of politicians and lawmakers tend to be lawyers or judges before they were politicians. Ever get the feeling they're doing stuff like this to generate income for their lawyer buddies? I mean, this is a really really ugly can of worms and you're going after the websites instead of the individuals that're actually the bad actors. Talk about backwards, stupid and defective. Just wow.
Yeah, I dunno. Seems like government is trying to push everything into the dark web, so they can have a clean kid-friendly, politically-correct internet for the masses. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a good thing, but maybe it'll force the trolls and their ilk in to the dark web too. Then we can have a happy cloud with no dirty spots, no controversy, and certainly no free-speech. Good job?
You better drop that price. Sycodon is advertising BJ's for 3 bucks.
Though I wonder if there is. Maybe sex traffickers are posting here in coded phrases. I'm suspicious this is going on because it seems like "Windows" really means anal rape, "Linux" may mean hand job, "Android" seems to mean anonymous gay sex, "FreeBSD" is too obvious, "macOS" means orgy, iOS means masterbation partner, "mySQL" means octogenarian swingers, programmer means Pimp Assistant, etc. This is a filthy place and should be shutdown -now. Forget pizza gate. Slashdotgate is the breaking story worldwide. I read it on Breitbart so it must be true.
The first amendment protects an intrinsic attribute of being a person, while the second regulates a very external piece of optional property that arguably exists only to destroy.
You are mistaken. In the constitutional era private ownership was key to having a "well-regulated" militia. "Well-regulated" in that era was commonly used to describe something as effectively functioning, in the militia context properly equipped and trained. This usage is less common today, the resulting confusion a matter how phraseology and fashion changes over the centuries.
... yet they are legally part of the inactive federal militia. Well, they don't have to show up until drafted, which is legally a transfer from inactive militia to the regular reserves.
Militia often carried their personal weapons, and those weapons were at times technologically superior to the military issued weapons. For example the Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles of hunters as opposed to the military issued muskets. The establishment of the right to private ownership helped ensure properly equipped militias. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The *people* have the right so that the militia will be equipped and trained (private ownership, hunting, private target shooting, etc).
Keep in mind that then, and *today*, the militia included all able bodied male citizens of military age. Today, the federal militia has both active and inactive components, the active the national guard and the inactive all abled bodied males age 18-45. The latter do *not* have to sign up, do *not* have to show up anywhere,
... free speech is a fundamental right necessary of the upholding of liberty, and gun ownership has no actual impact on a persons liberty, anymore than the "right' to buy toothpaste, or certain sorts of drugs ...
You are misinformed. The Bill of Rights was specifically added to address what was considered fundamental rights, the inclusion of private ownership is its defacto establishment as fundamental. The fact that private ownership of firearms was the second item listed suggests its relative importance.
... well, until drafted, which is legally transferring you from inactive militia to regular reserves. So even today, the existence of a militia where all military age men are legal members, is a fundamental part of national defense. Its the legal underpinning of conscription, the draft.
... until you also consider that in the constitutional era it also had a "law enforcement" / "peace keeping" / "self defense" role. The later, self defense, is recognized by the US supplement court as a right derived from the second amendment. So the second amendment has a fundamental role to this day.
Private ownership of firearms was fundamental because the militia was a fundamental element of national defense in constitutional days, and local "law enforcement" to some degree. The "standing army", the regulars, was quite small. Militia members were commonly equipped with their personal privately owned weapons. The text of the second amendment is establishing the right to private ownership so that militias may be more easily equipped. In a practical sense militias had sometimes been better equipped than the regulars, for example the Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles some militia brought from home compared to the muskets issued by the army.
You might argue that we have a large regular army, that the national guard is the modern citizen soldiers / militia, and police forces. True, but that does not change the legal fact that we also still have a federal militia to this day and the national guard is defined to be only part of that militia, the active part. There is also an inactive part that by federal law is composed of all able bodied males age 18-45. This inactive part required no signing up, there is no obligation to show up anywhere
While militia called to active service (drafted civilians) no longer need to bring their own weapons, the fact remains that in constitutional days this was common, hence fundamental, hence the reason a personal individual right to firearms was established, a right that helped ensure that militias were "well-regulated", ie properly equipped and trained.
OK, beyond the draft, a federal militia is a bit of an anachronism
No. We designed the coded phrases to hide as political bashing. I won't give it all away, but it allows trafficking to occur on any site instead of just tech sites (though Slashdot is one of the most active), and, it can never be censored without one side or the other screaming that their message isn't getting out.
Liberals beg fir war and censorship and then complain when it;s give to them. They desperately want Muh Russia dealt with and to have Trumps loyalty proven and they claim to be anti-war. Then they accuse him of Russian collusion with zero actual evidence, and they're surprised when he challenges Syria. Then they demonize people like Alex Jones and inadvertently go after free speech online in the process. They launch smear and call the president a sex criminal, and yet again they are surprised when he proves his compliance on the issue and goes after sex trafficing online.
Stop appealing to his insecurities liberals, you are making things worse.
In fact, why don't you shut the hell up altogether. I promise, you are not helping the situation.But it's your free speech, do what you feel.
If Trump actually censors sex talk and gossip and lies and imersonation and catfishing and trolling for girls then Trump will jave been successful in silencing himself!
If Trump actually censors sex talk and gossip and lies and impersonation and catfishing and trolling for girls then Trump will have been successful in silencing himself!!!
Not to mention from a technology standpoint, porn is an incredible bandwidth hog.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
That "Scientology" question appears to have gone missing.
no one here gets arrested for 'fucking a ho' ...its quite in the open, even the more conservative mayors would speak about "moving it to the edge of town" and not about RE-moving it ... and frankly if it werent for the nigerian mammadoc this year its barely ever in the news, no shooting or dead girls but that doesnt mean they get protection by law or anything, its a grey zone and the fact that nothing ever happens is probably why last year the nigerians could do what they did, smuggle underage girls into the place, otherwise that wouldnt have happened, for once i agree with the controlfreaks there, if its illegal the girls cant get protection from anyone but a pimp ... high class escorts can pay for a bodyguard to double as a driver but your €50 for a blow & go girl wouldnt
all stuck on ancient morals i suppose, but wherever its illegal it still happens, just like the dea has been winning the war on drugs which is why they dont need money anymore
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Yeah, like Republicans are going to vote in favor of business regulations.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.