Cloudflare: FOSTA Was a 'Very Bad Bill' That's Left the Internet's Infrastructure Hanging (vice.com)

Last week, President Donald Trump signed the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) into law. It's a bill that penalizes any platform found "facilitating prostitution," and has caused many advocacy groups to come out against the bill, saying that it undermines essential internet freedoms. The most recent entity to decry FOSTA is Cloudflare, which recently decided to terminate its content delivery network services for an alternative, decentralized social media platform called Switter. Motherboard talked to Cloudflare's general counsel, Doug Kramer, about the bill and he said that FOSTA was an ill-consider bill that's now become a dangerous law: "[Terminating service to Switter] is related to our attempts to understand FOSTA, which is a very bad law and a very dangerous precedent," he told me in a phone conversation. "We have been traditionally very open about what we do and our roles as an internet infrastructure company, and the steps we take to both comply with the law and our legal obligations -- but also provide security and protection, let the internet flourish and support our goals of building a better internet." Cloudflare lobbied against FOSTA, Kramer said, urging lawmakers to be more specific about how infrastructure companies like internet service providers, registrars and hosting and security companies like Cloudflare would be impacted. Now, he said, they're trying to figure out how customers like Switter will be affected, and how Cloudflare will be held accountable for them.

"We don't deny at all that we have an obligation to comply with the law," he said. "We tried in this circumstance to get a law that would make sense for infrastructure companies... Congress didn't do the hard work of understanding how the internet works and how this law should be crafted to pursue its goals without unintended consequences. We talked to them about this. A lot of groups did. And it was hard work that they decided not do." He said the company hopes, going forward, that there will be more clarity from lawmakers on how FOSTA is applied to internet infrastructure. But until then, he and others there are having to figure it out along with law enforcement and customers. "Listen, we've been saying this all along and I think people are saying now, this is a very bad law," Kramer said. "We think, for now, it makes the internet a different place and a little less free today as a result. And there's a real-world implication of this that people are just starting to grapple with."

Comments

"it makes the internet a different place"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, one with less prostitution.

Thank you President Trump!

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Anonymous Coward]

Heaven forbid two consenting adults do whatever the fuck they want, causing no injury to anyone, except for moral busybodies.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Any platform" should include hotels. I wonder why it doesn't.... Corrupt real estate developer politicians maybe? Trump has been in politics since he ran for President in what, 1988? He just failed at campaigning the first twenty five years. Now he has graduated to failing at governance.
Hypocrisy is straight A's tho.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Anonymous Coward]

>"Any platform" should include hotels. I wonder why it doesn't....

duhhh, maybe cause hotels don't advertise online that they got whores? The "O" in FOSTA stands for online, dipshit.

Re:"it makes the internet a different place"

[Zontar The Mindless]

Yes, we just call it "having my mouthpiece dole out some hush money" now.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[DNS-and-BIND]

The same platforms that are used by "legitimate" prostitutes are also used by human traffickers. Since we can't tell them apart, all of them have to go. "If there are ten people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all ten people."

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, but in the case of human trafficking, these are not consenting adults but rather a victim of some truly horrendous crimes, and open platforms enable the marketplace. Now, if you want to license prostitutes and have them post an ID number on a site ensuring it is legit, then go for it.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Anonymous Coward]

That quote is about not allowing male students to enroll at a college where there were any accusations of rape levied against them. This is about stopping many peoples naughty, legal interactions with force of law.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[x0ra]

What makes "online" different that "brick-and-mortar", dipshit ? (beside the level of political contribution)

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[DNS-and-BIND]

It's about stopping evil activity by throwing out the evil with the good, and saying it's OK if good is harmed. Since these prostitution platforms are used for illegal human trafficking, they must be thrown out even if it harms "legitimate" prostitutes. It must be a wonderful feeling to lay down one's closely held values for the sake of freeing slaves. The sensation of sacrifice must be thrilling.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[BronsCon]

And both are wrong as both harm people who've done nothing wrong. Isn't the point of law supposed to be to protect the innocent? When law harms the innocent, the law has gone awry.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, dipshit, the most pertinent difference is the fact the law in question and the topic of this Slashdot post is the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act and doesn't mention anything about prostitution in any context other than online services. There's already state and local and federal laws which deal with prostitution and trafficking in real life, dipshit. See, dipshit, this is just about websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims. Got that, dipshit?

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing, ...anymore ..... and that was kinda the point of this law? lol, imagine running a hotel without paying taxes .....

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[JaredOfEuropa]

Hell no. If you can’t tell them apart, all of them will have to be left alone, and you will have to find some other way to combat human trafficking. That is a core element of a free society under the rule of law.

In practice it’s more of a consideration than a hard principle, but it’s an important one. It means that with any law that harms innocents for the sake of fighting a certain crime, the rights of these innocents must weigh very, very heavily against the purported goals. And where the impact on innocent bystanders is large, it becomes important to ensure and verify that those goals are actually met. In that light, this law falls seriously short. It’s “think of the children” legislation.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Anonymous Coward]

Whores are innocent??!! Johns innocent??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Heh, whew.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Priscilla Chan]

"Relax Mark," she says. I slowly unzip my pants.

The living room in this house has an incredible view. It’s as if you can see every inch of the Bay Area from up here. Is the Bay Area seeing every inch of me though?

Mark begins to sob. "My mother was right." He hangs his head in anguish. "I should have married a nice Jewish woman."

"Oh please." Priscilla rolls her eyes. "Have you ever even met a Jewish American Princess? The first JAP you would have tied the knot with would have taken half of your shit and used that money to keep the ball rolling with the next ten men."

"But look at what you’re doing now! I guess I should have expected no better from a girl I met at an AEPi party!" Mark shoots back.

"We agreed this would be the best action to take for the health of our marriage. Why are you so bitter now?"

"I don’t know. It just feels weird."

"That’s normal," Priscilla says coolly. She looks straight at me: "Let’s get this over with."

"Listen, if you guys aren’t comfortable with this, I can leave," I say, trying to keep the situation calm. A dog enters the room. It’s big, with what looks like long white pool noodles for fur. If Bob Marley had an Albino dog, this would be it. He seems confused, but he can tell Mark is agitated. The canine looks at me and begins to snarl.

"Calm down, Beast!" Priscilla shouts.

The dog immediately cowers back in fear, whimpering quietly. How did I get myself into this? Priscilla looks back at me: "No, you’re finishing this."

I shift my gaze back from the dog to the window. "So, are you comfortable, Priscilla?" Great view.

"Doctor," she corrects me.

"Doctor Priscilla?"

"Doctor Chan."

"Have you done something like this with your patients?" Mark interrupts anxiously.

"No Mark, I just prefer to be called by my proper title with strangers. Stop being so petty. You know I love you. I’m doing this for you," she replies gently.

"Yeah. I’m sorry honey. You know I’m just getting worked up," Mark begins to twiddle his thumbs.

"Ugh. You’re worse than your mother. Do you want to be like them?"

I have to interject- "Like who?"

Priscilla is quick to answer: "The Obamas. The Musks. You know."

"No, I really don’t," I answer. Because I don’t. What are these bizarre people going on about?

"Like last New Year’s eve. Elon Musk filed for divorce while everyone was out having the time of their lives," Priscilla explains.

"And the Obamas?" I inquire further.

Mark answers, "I’m pretty much on a first-name basis with Barry. The controversy is that last Christmas vacation when the Obamas flew out to Hawaii, Barry came back, but Michelle stayed an extra week. It was quite a spectacle."

"’I’m pretty much on a first-name basis with Barry.’" Priscilla repeats mockingly. "As if we don’t all know Obama’s first name."

"I don’t get it. What do those guys have to do with you?" I need to ask again, for I am not one of quick wit.

"Well, frankly, the marriage is stagnating. We married too young and never really got to explore ourselves. But we can’t get a divorce, it would be too high profile. The press wouldn’t stop harassing us about it. It would be like if Hillary and Bill got a divorce halfway through her campaign run," Priscilla explains.

"I understand." I don’t actually understand. But who knows how long this explanation of their scheming and paltry concerns will go on for? I don’t really care.

"The last thing Mark would want," Priscilla starts again, "is for me to run away from San Francisco, and travel the world alone! I’d even have a blog, where I would tell everyone that they need to quit their jobs, marry a nice Jewish boy from Harvard with a budding social network, and

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Joce640k]

Yeah, there's no way traffickers could get fake ID numbers.

The answer to trafficking is to legalize all forms of prostitution. If there's plenty of consenting supply then there's less profit in supplying it illegally and less people will be trafficked.

The same goes for drugs: Making drugs illegal doesn't take any drugs off the streets, it just fills the pockets of the mafia.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Anonymous Coward]

See, Dipshit, Zuck dipped his penis in shit then proceeded to fuck the world with it.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[DNS-and-BIND]

That's the old way of thinking. You're talking about the old Eurocentric way of thinking, the one that has been used to dominate other people. For the past several decades, more and more academics have called this way of thinking into question, especially the sort of rationalist worldview that emerged in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The one that came up with outdated ideas like the one you espouse, the rights of innocents. The world has moved on, and if innocents must be harmed to fight a greater evil, then so be it. You want to argue, go find some post-structuralist thinkers and tell them your 18th century values are still valid in a globalized world.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[TheReaperD]

The general sense I get from this is lawmakers either wanted to make a well-intentioned law but, didn't understand the internet well enough to write it, were informed it was bad as written and it would take far more research and work to design it to work as intended, and the lawmakers decided they didn't want to spend the time/work and passed "whatever" instead or anti-sin activists wanted to shut down smut sites on the internet and intentionally passed it under the guise of an anti-trafficking bill to slide it through. Both scenarios are believable so I'm not sure which is correct. It is possible that group 1 started the bill and group 2 hijacked it, too.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[TheReaperD]

"Whoosh!"

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[TheReaperD]

The problem is this bill gathers them all up and treats them equally. There's no distinction or any incentive for the sites to create distinction. That's the problem with this bill.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Anonymous Coward]

The same platforms that are used by "legitimate" prostitutes are also used by human traffickers. Since we can't tell them apart, all of them have to go. "If there are ten people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all ten people."

Ironically, that is the antithesis of Blackstone's Formulation. Most know it as what

Benjamin Franklin stated it as,
"it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Anonymous Coward]

Children could be harmed. Think of the children. Always think of the children.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegal is not immoral.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa now, Robespierre.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Nidi62]

So the obvious solution is to legalize prostitution so that adults who make their own choice to enter that profession can do so safely and openly without having to resort to more clandestine customer acquisition methods. But of course, the goal isn't really protection of these women, it's about punishing something they feel is immoral.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Anonymous Coward]

Next do guns.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[BronsCon]

All plausible. It really will be impossible to differentiate ignorance from malice in this instance, I believe... unless you consider purposely attempting to legislate something you do not understand without taking the time to at least attempt to understand it a malicious act, in which case we're looking at clear-cut malice no matter what angle we look from.

I, for one, always consider willful ignorance to be malicious.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Anonymous Coward]

Collective punishment is not a legitimate tool to use in literally any situation, including the military. How it ever worked in Roman times is amazing, but it does not work now.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[edtice1559]

So I guess if you are really good at driving fast, speed limits are an imposition on your freedom?

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Anonymous Coward]

But we're not talking about moral vs immoral, we're talking about innocent vs guilty. You can argue all you want that prostitution should be legal (I think it should be as well), but the fact is it is illegal, and thus anyone participating in the act cannot, by definition, be called innocent.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[JaredOfEuropa]

Yes they are. But as I said, in practice these aren't absolutes; the pros and cons need to be weighed. Only a few people are really good at driving fast as opposed to the hordes of idiots who merely think they are good. Even if you are really good, that really only applies to controlled conditions. On public roads, even the best driver is subject to risk of an unavoidable collision, and that risk increases with speed, even for really good speeders. In this case, almost everyone* agrees that the downsides far ouweigh the rather small imposition on your freedom to go at any speed you like. Same for the obligation to wear seat belts. In case of human traficking and Internet platforms, the imposition of these measures on free speech and the platforms to provide it are far more fundamental.

*) I suppose Germany is the exception, where there are still stretches of Autobahn with no speed limit.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Narcocide]

Look, it's not even illegal everywhere in the US. Moreover, the impact will affect vastly more innocents than exploiters. Who this bill will really punish is single mothers in rural areas who will now have to hit the streets to keep their kids from starving. You've backed a solution that increases exploitation and illegal prostitution, the two things you claim to hate so much. Good job.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It works, that's why it is used. It is also wrong.

If you want to stop a behavior, don't just punish those who do it. Punish those who allow it to happen.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It's one of the primary tools of dictators.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Well, dipshit, the most pertinent difference is the fact the law in question and the topic of this Slashdot post is the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act and doesn't mention anything about prostitution in any context other than online services.

So...the free newspapers stacked on the window sills at supermarket exits, the ones with prostitution ads on their back pages, which is what Backpage modeled itself after, are still free? Those rags with their relentless Industrial Workers of the World Unite! attitudes that make Nancy Pelosi look like a knuckle-dragging gorilla named Adolf?

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Obfuscant]

The answer to trafficking is to legalize all forms of prostitution. If there's plenty of consenting supply then there's less profit in supplying it illegally

You assume there would be "plenty of consenting supply". And you assume that the regulation of the industry would not impose costs that illicit providers would avoid, just like those who smuggle and illegally distribute alcohol, cigarettes, and pot already do.

Where there is profit, there is a profit motive. No, I'm sorry, but the answer to trafficking is to keep it illegal and prosecute those who profit and promote it.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Joce640k]

You assume there would be "plenty of consenting supply"

And you assume that there won't be.

Unfortunately for you, the evidence is on my side. Try looking at a country where it's legal, eg. most of Europe.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Obfuscant]

And you assume that there won't be.

I don't see a surplus in places like Nevada or Amsterdam, so yes, I assume that this would not change.

Unfortunately for you, the evidence is on my side. Try looking at a country where it's legal, eg. most of Europe.

Why yes, I see scads of beautiful women just lining up to become sex partners with the kind of men who need to pay for sex, because it is such a wonderful, safe, and desirable profession. I remember walking down the street in Amsterdam to see what could be seen, and I remember wanting to flush my eyes with bleach after doing that.

While the supply might be amazing in such places, the demand isn't for what the supply can do, and the costs of being legal are still lost profit to those who act extra-legally. Legalizing prostitution is not the answer to sex trafficking and unwilling participants, any more than legalizing booze was the solution for moonshining and bootlegging.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Joce640k]

I remember walking down the street in Amsterdam to see what could be seen, and I remember wanting to flush my eyes with bleach after doing that.

Ah, yes, the famous Amsterdam street. For tourists.

That ain't typical. Really.

Re: "it makes the internet a different place"

[Anonymous Coward]

But that is not why Cloudflare is saying this. They know itâ(TM)s a tipping point where they will be forced to actually police the child porn they are enabling.

Why blame Trump...

[Anonymous Coward]

When the majority of Democrats in the House and Senate voted for this?

Re: Why blame Trump...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the President needs to be limited.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[thaylin]

what "blame" all they said was he signed it, which is factual.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly upvote this one please all. I am American and many people agree everything bad is Democrat party fault and nothing Amazing president Trump does is given credit! Shameful!

Re: Why blame Trump...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a retard.

The president in this case is the one with the power to limit Congress's power to pass legislation. In this instance he chose not to. The President is not supposed to be obstructionist and micro manage the laws of the people and the states.

Demand better from your failing, corrupt congress.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[pots]

Funny you should only mention Democrats. That's probably telling.

People blame the president because people always blame the president. They want a single person to point at.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[TheGratefulNet]

democrats?

you mean the party that has ZERO POWER in this era?

the R's have all 3 power bases.

you wanna blame the D's though?

you truly are an anonymous asswipe.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[Lothsahn]

Look, the Democrats and Republicans both voted overwhelmingly to pass this. In the senate, only TWO senators voted against it (Rand Paul and Ron Wyden), both who have historically stood up for civil liberties and privacy.

I'm blaming the D's AND the R's. Regardless of who's in power, every representative gets a vote, and nearly everyone used it to pass FOSTA. Had the D's mostly voted against FOSTA, it would have still passed, but I wouldn't blame them. That's how it works.

By the way, if you are a civil liberties person and concerned about privacy, Paul and Wyden would be great to donate to. If you're partisan, donate to the one on your party.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think Rs have all the power, you don't understand how the senate works.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[AK Marc]

Passed the senate 92-2. The vote was "Vote no if you are you a child rapist'

The vote would have gone no other way. So it lands on the President to veto crap like that if it passes. Even with a "veto proof majority". Especially with a veto-proof majority.

The problem is politics, where everything is framed by the bullies. If you don't vote for it, you'll be vilified.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[AK Marc]

Nope. The Republican Speaker of the House can kill any bill by refusing to put it to the vote. He did with the "don't fire Comey" bill. He could have done it with this. The leader of the Senate is also a Republican. The President is a Republican. Any one of those three people could have killed the bill. All three are Republican. The blame goes to the Republicans.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[AK Marc]

The only power the Democrats have in the Senate is the power to delay. The Republicans have a majority. They can block 100% of what the democrats want, and will get through 99.9% of what they want. The power is with the Republicans.

The republicans have so much power, they voted to increase the vote to pass a budget to 60% (something they could do with their measly 50%), just to try to pass something evil and blame the Democrats when the Democrats didn't vote for the evil.

The only time they don't have power is when they are going out of their way to lose, so they can blame the Democrats.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[TheReaperD]

Presidents always tend to get the blame, regardless of party. Example on the other side: "Obamacare," even though Obama had nothing to do with it's writing. It was primarily written up by Kennedy's team.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why did your precious Democrats vote for it? Why not vote against it?

If you support them, then you support this bill. You should be railing against your party that did you no favors.

Or keep posting here like a petulant asshole who cannot see the truth - there is NO difference between the two major parties, and you bought into a fucking lie.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[shilly]

You're right that only the Republicans had the power to make this bill happen, or stop it. All the Democrats could do was to go through the motions: casting a vote and sending a signal. So why the fuck send a signal of support? Are they out of their tiny minds? Did none of their staffers bother to go through this and say "this bill doesn't do what you'd want it to do, despite what it's called. It's a bad bill. Vote no."?

Re:Why blame Trump...

[fafalone]

And the Democrats could have filibustered it had they not been wildly in favor of it.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[houghi]

I have no problem with both the Dems and the Reps being against self employed people like sex workers and making the job safer. (Perhaps not clear in my wording, but I am pro-prostitution. There is a demand, so supply will be given. Better regulated than unregulated.)
It clearly shows the downside of a bi-party system. However the "winner takes all" means that the bi-party is the default that will happen.

There are way better systems of voting where a multi part system is a given AND where the majority of people will get what they want. That could still mean that it would have the same outcome, but most likely not as overwhelming ad perhaps with enough opposition to do some serious changes to the law.

Oh well. I just go to my legal hooker if I so desire, so she earns money in a relative safe environment and we can discuss who hates their job more, she or I. (I think I get fucked harder than she will ever be.) Or I do not go like, ever.

It is not the fact that I am a customer that I am in favor. I am in favor, so it will be decriminalized. This will be cheaper in then end, so lower taxes or the same amount of taxes that can be spend elsewhere.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[Anonymous Coward]

I faintly recall, it takes 3 'bodies' to sign a Bill into Law.

Sorry friend, but everyone gets the blame on this one, anyone pointing out otherwise, has an agenda.
This issue, has no political slant, beyond what people apply to it. This is and was, a free speech limiting bill. Nothing more.

EVERYONE in America, and EVERY content provider, content hoster, should be livid and actively engaged at this point.

This law is bad all around despite its intended target, which is questionable to begin with.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[bluefoxlucid]

Ron Wyden is amazing. Warren too, but she voted for this travesty.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[squiggleslash]

True. This is basically a repeat of the Assault Weapons Ban but with the parties reversed. The Republicans will get stick for it (as the Democrats did the AWB, despite it having near unanimous Republican support), but in practice everyone voted for it because nobody wants to be seen to be "for" sex trafficking, even if it's a stupid bill that hurts more innocent people than guilty.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[edtice1559]

Maybe because, even if you think that legal prostitution is a good idea, it's a very politically difficult vote to make. You only have so much political capital. Why invest it voting against this bill when you have other priorities than making life easier for the Johns.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[Anonymous Coward]

He signed it. He could have done the right thing but he decided to be a Democrat instead. So fuck him too. Why wouldn't you want these people held accountable?

Amidst the chaos of the 2016 presidential election, there was actually some good news. Nearly 5% of people finally voted against these assholes, up from the usual 1%. Keep pressing the enemy and maybe we'll get 10% next time.

Re: Why blame Trump...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes I too am American and everyone I know is talking about threat to freedom that Democrat party has to us. First sex assault workers and then our guns too. This is whyall the other right thinking Americans like us support the NRA and Trump 2020 campanes with huge donations every month. Amazing!

Re:Why blame Trump...

[Green Mountain Bot]

The applicability of blame to one does not alleviate the applicability of blame to others. Trump signed this PoS, so he gets blame. The vast majority of both Democrats and Republicans in congress voted for it, so they get blame. It's not a zero-sum game.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[Dragonslicer]

A better example would be blaming Bill Clinton for signing the DMCA. I think the Senate vote was something like 99-0.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[Dragonslicer]

The President is a Republican. Any one of those three people could have killed the bill.

In practice, Trump couldn't have killed it. He could have made an empty gesture and vetoed it, but unless more than 30 senators changed their mind because of the veto, it would still become law.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[Dragonslicer]

I think I'm a bit more surprised that Sanders voted for it than I am about Warren.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why it isn't a democracy. If your only options are vote for it, or be persecuted for the rest of your life, you don't have a choice, and neither do the people you represent. It is a hamfisted internet censorship bill that was passed because of: "Rubber stamp it, or you're a rapist", and created by a bunch of worthless cretins moaning "do something."

This bill will get overturned eventually. Saying that the platforms themselves are responsible for the speech of others is a very shaky argument to be made, and because it applies to all platforms, it's an obvious attempt by Congress at doing an end-run around the right to free speech without actually revising the 1st amendment. All they've done is say that they get to choose what's to be censored, and pinned the responsibility for carrying out said censoring on the platforms. Congress is still in the business of dictating what is and isn't "acceptable speech" because they retained the right to define it in the law. Therefore the 1st is violated and that section must be deemed unconstitutional. Standard disclaimer: IANAL.

If it doesn't get overturned, then the article doesn't to the problem justice. It would effectively spell the end of the internet as we know it, as only "safe" content could be posted without running the risk of a lawsuit. That would be the end of user-generated content online. Hell, it may even end online conversations of any kind. Comment sections, Email, VoIP, IM, message boards, IRC, etc. all could be destroyed if the lawsuits were aimed at them. I'm sure there's some middlemen in the media industry that would be happy about the genie being put back in the bottle, but the internet would be effectively dead for most people, as would be their ability to communicate with others. All because some special snowflakes decided the world should protect their eyes for them, because they won't do it on their own by choice.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[AK Marc]

A filibuster doesn't kill it. A filibuster allows a close vote to be delayed, targeting times when the "other side" won't be present to vote. They have also been "eliminated" by provisions that eliminate the ability to call a vote on the end of a filibuster. In the old days, the Last Man Standing won. These days, a filibuster will end with a delay to allow voting members to return and vote. So the power has ended. But apparently it's used extensively to blame the minority for letting something bad pass.

Re:Why blame Trump...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're trying to convince constituents that they're all not themselves scouring the streets looking for things of the carnal realm (in light of all the recent bad press). Looks good, and that's all they care about.

On the other hand, this could make places like FB and Reddit look like such sterile white-walled asylums that other startups might have a chance, although they'd all have to be operating in other countries (but probably not Europe). I'm no fan of Backpage (never been there) - but you don't have to be one to see the ludicrousness of this.

And they still carry mail, FB, dating services?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no doubt that trafficking occurs on all the subject services or that the services and carriers knowingly continue to allow it. Carriers need to shut them down so that we can get this law changed. Zero tolerance for ALL law breakers usually results in new laws. Don't wait to let law enforcement figure out how they WANT to use it. Make them use it 100% against all who violate the letter of it.

Alternate headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Mafia controlled company bans competitor of mafia controlled company, blames Trump

the oldest profession

[rmdingler]

Okay, maybe it is indeed the selling of ass, but not far behind is the often uncompensated occupation of righteous indignation... undoubtedly founded by a special interest group previously in charge of a monopoly on the delivery of ass... not entirely an objective political action committee.

Clearly legalized prostitution is a deterrent to sexual assault. If I hear one more person claim rape isn't a sex crime, I think I might run outside with my hands over my ears and complete those fucking chores I've been putting off... or have another whiskey. I can't be certain.

Re:the oldest profession

[Plus1Entropy]

If I hear one more person claim rape isn't a sex crime

??? Do people say this?

Re:the oldest profession

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares, I just found this camera pigeon

Re:the oldest profession

[rmdingler]

From the look on his face, that pigeon cares. Deeply.

Re:the oldest profession

[Dutch Gun]

??? Do people say this?

I've heard it most of my life. "It's a crime of power and control." They don't mean it isn't *categorized* as a sex crime, though. They're talking about motivations, etc.

Personally, I've always though that it's probably overly-simplistic to boil an entire category of crime down to a single, universal motive.

Re:the oldest profession

[DNS-and-BIND]

"We should no more be encouraging rapists to find a supposedly safe outlet for it than we should facilitate murderers by giving them realistic, blood-spurting dummies to stab...to make such a solution available is to risk normalizing rape by giving it a publicly acceptable face."

-- The New York Times

Re:the oldest profession

[PPH]

often uncompensated occupation of righteous indignation

Not as often uncompensated as you'd think. The ability to deliver a mindless voter base motivated by blind rage is worth quite a lot. And if paid enough, their leaders will happily look the other way while the customer fondles a few altar boys.

Re:the oldest profession

[pots]

I don't think the parent was encouraging the raping of prostitutes...

Was the parent encouraging the raping of prostitutes? In what way is legalized prostitution a deterrent to sexual assault? Now you've got me all confused.

Re:the oldest profession

[DNS-and-BIND]

There's this idea that if prostitution was legal, men would rape less because they'd have an outlet for their sexual urges. This mistaken idea goes against the concepts of feminism and must be resisted every time it pops up. Rape is a core feature of patriarchy.

Re:the oldest profession

[dgatwood]

There's this idea that if prostitution was legal, men would rape less because they'd have an outlet for their sexual urges. This mistaken idea goes against the concepts of feminism and must be resisted every time it pops up.

Some of them might. Some of them might rape more. The correct response so such ideas is always "Show me the data."

Unfortunately for you, someone did just that, and the numbers strongly suggest that you're wrong. And lest you think the phenomenon is limited to Europe, a present Rhode Island as a counterpoint.

Disturbing as it might seem to many, legalized prostitution actually does reduce rape and sexual abuse. A lot. We're not talking about some small variation that could be attributed to chance. We're talking about 30% reduction within just two years. Much of this is likely because prostitutes in those areas feel safe admitting what they do to police, which means they can turn in people who commit crimes against them, thus putting people who harm other people behind bars.

More to the point, the argument in favor of legalizing prostitution is precisely the same as the argument for so-called "sancuary cities" that are hostile towards attempts to deport people solely for being undocumented immigrants. Sanctuary cities have lower crime rates as a direct result of those policies, because the immigrant community isn't afraid to report crimes. What possible reason, then, could anyone have for believing that legalized prostitution would not reduce crime in the same way?

Rape is a core feature of patriarchy.

And of course, preventing women from charging for sex means that any woman who feels that this is her only plausible way out of abject poverty is denied the opportunity to be so empowered legally, and therefore must therefore do so illegally. This means those women are much more at risk of abuse, at risk of getting caught up in networks of people who "protect" them in exchange for skimming part of the profit, because they aren't eligible for protection by law enforcement, and at risk of rape by former customers. And of course, they can't usefully report those rapes, because the first question out of the defense attorney's mouth will be, "How did you know the defendant," and if the witness's answer is, "Your honor, I plead the fifth amendment," the case isn't going to go well for the prosecution.

Anti-prostitution laws actually contribute to the subjugation of women. They don't prevent it. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding him/herself. The numbers speak volumes, and they say you're wrong. Very wrong. Want to convince me otherwise? Show me your numbers, and tell me why your numbers are better.

Re:the oldest profession

[dgatwood]

And after all that time carefully editing the last 90% of that post, I missed a typo in the first paragraph. "The correct response to such ideas is always 'Show me the data.'" [redacted swearing]

FTFM.

Re:the oldest profession

[pots]

What you're saying here doesn't match with your quote above. I went looking for the article you quoted from, and that is indeed talking about simulated rape (with sex robots). Not merely relieving sexual urges by having sex with prostitutes.

I'm not sure that I agree with the quote, we do encourage people with violent urges to work them out in a safe setting. Nothing as graphic as blood-spurting dummies, but punching things like a pillow or a heavy bag is not considered unhealthy when you're working out some aggression (or this...).

Re:the oldest profession

[Anonymous Coward]

The same way that making pot legal is a deterrent to robberies. If prostitution is legal then prostitutes who are raped can have the perps arrested without ending up in jail themselves. Of course, that assumes a legal system that is both willing and able to prosecute said cases.

Re:the oldest profession

[Anonymous Coward]

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/legal-prostitution-reduce-rape-holland

Here's another take on that Dutch study

The authors provide “causal evidence” of a 32 to 40 percent reduction in rape and sexual abuse within two years of a city opening a tippelzone. The higher number is for cities that license sex work in the tippelzone; the lower figure is for cities without a licensing process. “The decreases in sexual abuse are stronger in cities with licensed tippelzones.”
These gains fade over time.
Without precise data on the victims of sexual violence, it is not possible to determine exactly how the number of rapes and cases of sexual abuse fall in the population at large. Some victims are sex workers. But the authors believe the tippelzones lead “to a decrease in sexual violence on women more generally by providing an anonymous, appealing and easily accessible outlet for sex to otherwise violent individuals.”
When licensing is introduced after a tippelzone is established, it increases instances of sexual abuse and rape. This happens because, at first, the tippelzone attracts foreign prostitutes with dubious legal status. When they suddenly need licensing, many leave for “less controlled environments.”
Still, in a survey the authors cite, “95 percent of the interviewed prostitutes report feeling safer within the tippelzone.”
In cities with both a tippelzone and a licensing requirement, the authors find a 25 percent reduction in drug-related crimes within two years. That result persists beyond two years.
The authors do not find a relationship between tippelzones and weapons crimes or violent assaults.
As for perceptions, residents living near a tippelzone without a licensing system believe the tippelzone increases drug-related crime by 6 percent.
In cities where licensing requirements for sex workers are introduced at the same time as tippelzones, perceptions of drug-related crime fall across the city as a whole, though the perceptions rise slightly in areas near the tippelzones.

Seems like a mixed bag and certainly not definitive with "casual evidence".

https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/

A 2012 study published in World Development, “Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking?” investigates the effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows into high-income countries. The researchers — Seo-Yeong Cho of the German Institute for Economic Research, Axel Dreher of the University of Heidelberg and Eric Neumayer of the London School of Economics and Political Science — analyzed cross-sectional data of 116 countries to determine the effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows. In addition, they reviewed case studies of Denmark, Germany and Switzerland to examine the longitudinal effects of legalizing or criminalizing prostitution.

The study’s findings include:

Countries with legalized prostitution are associated with higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. The scale effect of legalizing prostitution, i.e. expansion of the market, outweighs the substitution effect, where legal sex workers are favored over illegal workers. On average, countries with legalized prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows.

Re:the oldest profession

[DNS-and-BIND]

Sexual urges do not cause rape. Patriarchy causes rape. Are you not familiar with the core tenets of feminism? How did you graduate university without knowing them?

Re:the oldest profession

[Maxo-Texas]

After myredbook went down, rapes of sex workers went up almost 20% as they were forced to become streetwalkers again. Already articles are starting to appear about this problem surging again. This law will kill some sex workers.

As a legitimate licensed massage therapist, my independence is greatly cut down as it's hard to find a place to advertise now so only corporate massage outlets can advertise right now. I might have to go work for less than half the rate for massage envy or some place like that. If they'll even hire me (I'm old- but have over two decades experience helping people recover from car wrecks after their physical therapy money runs out, and to relieve migraines, and to help people with fibromyalgia, and people with various overwork syndromes-- but to a spa- they want only young attractive people.)

Re:the oldest profession

[DNS-and-BIND]

There's this idea that if prostitution was legal, men would rape less because they'd have an outlet for their sexual urges. This mistaken idea goes against the concepts of feminism and must be resisted every time it pops up. Rape is a core feature of patriarchy.

Re:the oldest profession

[Anonymous Coward]

It was an attempt to invent a new concept of "sex" that has nothing to do with violence and domination. It's futile, and the proponents were (excuse the pun) fucking over the whole BDSM community by labeling as non-sexual the desires they enact in a safe, consensual way. Of course rapists are driven by sexual desires, and you cannot separate these from the desire to hurt and overpower the victim. It's not nice but this is how it is.

Re:the oldest profession

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really enjoying this new Poe's Law grade trolling you're doing. Keep it up.

Re:the oldest profession

[Anonymous Coward]

So, in short, it is a trade-off between human trafficking and sexual assaults? It seems there is no one simple solution ... except maybe ... sufficiently advanced sexbots? Then it could be possible to criminalize prostitution and clamp on human trafficking too. I guess then unwashed masses of uneducated and professionally incompetent women would have to resort to selling their reproductive abilities only, and become rent-a- surrogate mothers, but in choosing that career they would be unable to live dangerously, enjoy illicit drugs, etc. , so it is very probable that we would see a surge in female violent crime: mugging, robbery, breaking and entry ...

Re:the oldest profession

[houghi]

Not really. What they will say that the motive is not sexually motivated. The idea that "rape =/= forced sex". The sex is seen as a tool, rather than the motivation. This often comes up if people say "castrate the rapist" as it would not remove the motive, just the penis.

In many cases the rape is to be seen as a power play resulting in sex. So it is a sexual crime causes by power. So the motivation is power, not sex. That makes people think that what is said is that it is a power crime, not a sex crime and that is not the case.

What you need to do is look if people are talking about the act it self (which is sexual) or the motive (which is thought to be non-sexual)

The problem with this is that unless you studied the matter, it is very difficult to understand the difference and the motive of a rapist. So what people focus on is the act, not the cause.

From the discussions I had about this it seems that people who focus on the act are more about punishment (cut of his dick, Rape him some, ...) and people who focus on the cause are more about solving it (Give him mental help, remove his willingness of over powering).

As always the truth lies somewhere in the middle and one does not exclude the other.

Re:the oldest profession

[stdarg]

In many cases the rape is to be seen as a power play resulting in sex.

You can apply that to just about any crime. Tax evasion is about power, forcing your will over the government and beating the system, not about wanting to pay less money.. it just happens to result in paying less money on your taxes.

I'm sure it is true for some perpetrators but I wouldn't say "many" without some evidence, which I've never seen. I don't know how you'd even collect such evidence. How do you determine the "true" motivation for a crime? Ask the criminal and trust the answer? On the other hand we can look at statistics about victims of rape and see that there are patterns. I find it hard to reconcile those patterns with the theory that it's not sexually motivated.

Re:the oldest profession

[Anonymous Coward]

and feminism has become a faschist idealism that seems to think that it is ok to tell women what they can do with their bodies because they "care about the women".

This is why feminism has become a joke, its because everything that is done under its banner is the exact same thing that they claim to be fighting against that is done under the banner of "the patriarchy" like telling women what they can and cant do with their bodies.

Forget your idea of men wanting to rape less because they can buy sex, how about the idea that a woman can sell her sex if she wants to because its her body and her agency? if feminists really cared about women they would educate and support, not tell other women what to do.

Re:the oldest profession

[squiggleslash]

I think most people who do tax evasion are just trying to be richer, they're not doing so to make a statement against the government. Rape, on the other hand, does appear to be about power - it might involve a supposedly sexual act, but it's not "sex" given sex is pretty much a two person thing. Reportedly many (most?) rapists don't even show signs of arousal during the attack, and the attack is frequently done primarily with objects, not the attacker's genitalia.

Re:the oldest profession

[epine]

Reportedly many (most?) rapists don't even show signs of arousal during the attack, and the attack is frequently done primarily with objects, not the attacker's genitalia.

You haven't hung out around very many drunken, entitled frat boys, have you?

And the guy was probably packing serious heat (in his pants) until that last beer shooter vaulted him into the "you wish" whiskey dick clover.

Re:the oldest profession

[Anonymous Coward]

load of crap, both male and female could "rape =/= forced sex" so saying; cut hes penis is totally wrong, whats next, cut that vagina?

 

Re:the oldest profession

[Khyber]

" but to a spa- they want only young attractive people."

Sure wasn't like that at my (expensive) Hotel del Coronado vacation the other week. I got an elderly short man that looked like he could've been a professional horse jockey doing my deep-tissue Swedish.

Re:the oldest profession

[Anonymous Coward]

>"sancuary cities" that are hostile towards attempts to deport people solely for being undocumented immigrants. Sanctuary cities have lower crime rates as a direct result of those policies, because the immigrant community isn't afraid to report crimes.

I can't for everywhere, but in Texas you have the facts wrong. Perception may be correct, but the facts are wrong.

Here, your immigration status is not checked if you are a victim, witness, or are reporting a crime. That's by Houston's police department policy, and most other police departments here in Texas. The only time it is checked is if you are arrested. Then if you have a immigration violation, you are turned over to ICE. The sanctuary cities either don't check, or won't hold those arrested and found with immigration violations.

Re:the oldest profession

[Anonymous Coward]

I once had a younger female masseuse who looked like a hockey player (which she was). She hurt me, and it was very therapeutic.

Re:the oldest profession

[Maxo-Texas]

Well good for him. I hope they pay him well too. From the name of the hotel -- was it in the states? My comment applied to the states.

Deep Tissue Swedish is a bit of an oxymoron.

Swedish typically uses a lot of effleurage ( rubbing the muscles with long gliding strokes in the direction of blood returning to the heart). It's usually pleasant, shallow, and relaxing.

Deep tissue massage uses firm pressure and slow strokes to reach deeper layers of muscle and fascia.

They are sort of opposite styles tho they can be used in a complementary fashion.

I do trigger point massage based on the work of a man named Clair Davies. It is very good for muscles in permanent spasm (aka a "trigger point").

This is a bit like quibbling over details about about computers in a movie tho. Most massage is good for you.
 

Re: the oldest profession

[Anonymous Coward]

thereâ(TM)s a great ted galk related to this

https://www.ted.com/talks/juno_mac_the_laws_that_sex_workers_really_want

Best to move offshore

[John.Banister]

Dear Internet services companies, here's the plan. You move offshore. We'll get VPNs. Citizen idiots will continue to vote in idiot politicians who will continue to make idiotic laws.

Re:Best to move offshore

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell would they do that? Just to host some prostitution websites? Get a grip, dude.

Re:Best to move offshore

[Anonymous Coward]

"...prositution websites..."

for now.

Re:Best to move offshore

[houghi]

How expensive are the off-shore politicians? Can we trust them to stay bought over a long period of time? How many parties do we have to buy, because buying two is easy.

Re:Best to move offshore

[Stan92057]

And that's not going to work for U.S owned companys. They are still required to follow the law no matter where their servers are located.

Re:Best to move offshore

[John.Banister]

Yes, my thought was that ownership also be transferred offshore.

Re:Best to move offshore

[John.Banister]

If buying two is easy, why wasn't it successful?

Re:Best to move offshore

[Anonymous Coward]

It was successful, that's the reason the thread exists.

This is why the USA is strange ..

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a nation that is fundamentally happy with the idea of people shooting children when they are at school, but the barest glimpse of a nipple and its national indignation. Very strange priorities ...

Re:This is why the USA is strange ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sex is big business, and the market has to be tightly controlled. Putting it the hands of organized criminals makes the rules easy to enforce, without all that legal mumbo-jumbo about your 'rights'. Mafia/corporate/government are not so distinct as the facade alludes.

Re:This is why the USA is strange ..

[Anonymous Coward]

I applaud you for speaking so close to the truth, even as an AC.

From the perspective of prostitution, this law does nothing but increase the cost (and thus profit) and shift money that had moved to the women (who were empowered by being able to more easily seek their own customers) back to pimps. With an increase in profit making potential, pimps will push the product more heavily and prostitution will increase as a result while the plight of the actual workers will worsen.

This is exactly what happens with drug laws where the more dangerous we make it to sell, the higher the profit, the higher the interest in pushing it, the greater the drug usage. Drug laws have never done anything in America but increase drug usage.

But, this law is a dual-edged sword. It's true purpose has nothing to do with stopping trafficking. That was just the needed excuse. It will force all web services using encryption to keep keys and develop the means to censor all user traffic. That infrastructure will then be available for other purposes down the road.

Re:This is why the USA is strange ..

[x0ra]

Putting it the hands of organized criminals makes the rules easy to enforce, ...

Works so well with drugs... oh... wait :-/

Re:This is why the USA is strange ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, within the organizations the rules of business are strictly enforced and justice is swift and sure. Like so many others who also misread my posts, you refuse to see from the angle of those who profit from the charade, thus write the rules for all to obey.

Re:This is why the USA is strange ..

[harrkev]

Wow. Completely wrong.

BOTH sides agree that people shooting children is a bad thing. However, both sides completely differ in their approach on how to prevent this.

One side thinks that if we pass enough gun laws, a person willing to break murder laws will decide to obey gun laws. They also assume that murderers can't use other weapons. America's two largest attacks did not use guns. Nice, France -- 86 people killed with a truck, and that was more deadly than our largest mass shooting.

The other side accepts that guns exist, but that the problem is with the criminal. They want the victims to have a chance against an armed enemy by being armed themselves.

But we have constitutional amendments protecting both speech and arms. However, if it is perfectly OK to infringe on one, then certainly it must be OK to infringe on the other, right?

Re:This is why the USA is strange ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of it as criminal unemployment insurance. In the last few years, people have finally started to vote to take the marijuana trade away from the criminals (and it's just a matter of time until it starts to expand to some other substances, e.g. 'shrooms). But what are the criminals to do? They need jobs too.

One idea people have suggested, is to create/expand a black market in guns, instead of having people get them at sporting goods stores. By driving the gun trade underground, we can eliminate the taxes, the waiting periods, etc and the former drug traffickers will have new income and renewed incentives to shoot each other, bystanders, cops, etc.

Another idea is to raise the barriers to entry for prostitution, so that they'll all need pimps again.

The idea is that free markets make things too hard for criminals. By turning from free markets to black markets (and diversifying) we can protect criminals' interests, maybe reverse the trend where violence overall keeps decreasing, and keep people from ever being able to trust cops, since everyone will be a criminal in some way. It's still not enough diversification, though. I think we need one or two more things made illegal. (Has it been long enough that we can try alcohol again?)

I actually think computers might be a neat thing to outlaw. Or at least programmable ones where the owner gets to choose what it does and how it works. Turning computers over to the black market would be fascinating.

Anyone got any other ideas? What else should the government interfere with the open operation of, so that it can become a business that only criminals are allowed to get into?

Re:This is why the USA is strange ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Except YOUR way has already been tried. For CENTURIES. And it keeps failing miserably. The U.S. has the highest rate of gun death of all the civilized world.

Basically every other country of the civilized world has tried the OTHER way. It's a resounding success. Gun deaths in those countries are significantly lower than in the U.S.

But I should know better to try to present facts and debate rationnaly about an issue that is basically 100% emotional in the U.S.

ZTE will file bankruptcy due to US technology ban

[Anonymous Coward]

How to kill a company? Simply by banning it from buying parts

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/04/17/how-the-u-s-export-ban-effectively-bankrupts-chinas-telecom-giant-zte/#29d6d8a9720c

All the better to OUTLAW You All

[Anonymous Coward]

And lock you all up and your little dog toto too yeeeeeeeeehahahahahahahaha! yeeeeeehahahahaha!
Brilliant master play against a free and open source of communication that posses a direct threat to the billionaire wealth presently in power or mass incompetence?

Does it even matter?

You'd better start standing up and doing something. So far the States are only acting against the FCC, the FOSTA act got strong support across the aisles with only 2 votes, one from each side dissenting

What a load of crap.

[Gravis Zero]

Cloudflare claims "Congress didn’t do the hard work of understanding how the internet works and how this law should be crafted to pursue its goals without unintended consequences. We talked to them about this. A lot of groups did. And it was hard work that they decided not do.”

This is a load of crap. What Cloudflare really wanted was a way that they could continue doing business without having to doing any of the work required for taking on clients. What they wanted was a "get out of jail free" card that gave them a eternal pass to shirk any and all responsibility.

Regardless of how you feel about the bill itself, you shouldn't be bothered by the crocodile tears coming from Cloudflare.

Re:What a load of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine a law that says you cannot serve food in restaurants to anyone that either has a felony conviction or is a suspect in an ongoing case in any jurisdiction in the US.

Cloudflare's business should be providing internet infrastructure to paying (or nonpaying) customers. It should not be, at all, trying to decide whether or not a customer's data or business practices are unacceptable in various regions around the world, especially at a level where Cloudflare itself is supposedly criminal liable. Can you imagine needing to undergo a background check to service from an ISP? That's basically what this amounts to.

It's simply ridiculous.

Re:What a load of crap.

[Gravis Zero]

Imagine a law that says you cannot serve food in restaurants to anyone that either has a felony conviction or is a suspect in an ongoing case in any jurisdiction in the US.

A more apt example would be selling someone a gun when you know they intend to use it to use it to rob a bank. Surprise, that is already illegal!

Re:What a load of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Can you imagine needing to undergo a background check to service from an ISP? That's basically what this amounts to.

Uh, you don't need to background check Switter to see that its not just a twitter like platform for sex workers. It's also a prostitution listing service.

Kinda surprised that Google has it listed in search results though.

Re:What a load of crap.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Did your ISP subject you to a background check before giving you an account? Since you just volunteered yourself and everybody else for one...?

Re:What a load of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they conduct a background check? Unless they had reason to believe that you're a whore who's going to use the internet connectivity in order to set up an online prostitution service, they won't do that. However, if they find out you are using their service for prostitution activities, they'll be required to cancel your account. Most ISP already have TOS that prohibit using their service for criminal activity anyway, so there's no extra burden here. Cloudflare is just whining.

Re:What a load of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

>It should not be, at all, trying to decide whether or not a customer's data or business practices are unacceptable in various regions around the world, especially at a level where Cloudflare itself is supposedly criminal liable.

And yet, its TOS says it can do exactly that
https://www.cloudflare.com/terms/

SECTION 11: INVESTIGATION
Cloudflare reserves the right to investigate you, your business, and/or your owners, officers, directors, managers, and other principals, your sites, and the materials comprising the sites at any time. These investigations will be conducted solely for Cloudflare’s benefit, and not for your benefit or that of any third party. If the investigation reveals any information, act, or omission, which in Cloudflare’s sole opinion, constitutes a violation of any local, state, federal, or foreign law or regulation, this Agreement, or is otherwise deemed harm the Service, Cloudflare may immediately shut down your access to the Service.

Re:What a load of crap.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Unless they had reason to believe that you're a whore who's going to use the internet connectivity in order to set up an online prostitution service...

"We couldn't help but notice that you show an awful lot of leg in your Facebook photos..."

Your turn.

Re:What a load of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know it isn't porn that the law is banning, right? It's escort websites and the lot.

Re:What a load of crap.

[BronsCon]

Actually, it's more like selling someone a gun, then learning after the fact that they intend to use it to rob a bank, with the slight difference that, in this case, Cloudflare can take the gun back. In neither case, though, is there (nor should there be) any liability for the initial sale; except that FOSTA actually puts that liability on Cloudflare even though they have no way of knowing what someone will use their service for until after they've used it.

Now, if you want to say Cloudflare should be liable for illegal activities they're aware of, facilitated by their services, and don't take action to stop, we can probably agree on that. And, funny enough, that's exactly what the existing Safe Harbor laws already do.

Re:What a load of crap.

[BronsCon]

You know showing a lot of leg isn't porn, right? It's one of the ways escort websites advertise, though. Then again, so is porn.

Re:What a load of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, just showing some leg isn't the way escort websites advertise. Here's the site mentioned in the TFA listings.switter.@ (I dunno if providing a link equals facilitating so I'll leave it to the reader to figure it out. It's unambiguous what's being offered.

Re:What a load of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

>And, funny enough, that's exactly what the existing Safe Harbor laws already do.

Which laws have the "Safe Harbor" provision you're referring too? It isn't the one that the FOSTA law amended, is it?

Re:What a load of crap.

[BronsCon]

It is, in fact, and it largely does away with the Safe Harbor provisions. Read my first paragraph again to learn why that's a problem.

Re:What a load of crap.

[BronsCon]

I never said "just", did I? Also, one site does not the entire market make. Pick up a sleazy adult mag, flip to the back pages, and do your research before you reply. Of course, ignore any ads that don't include a URL; but you'll find at least one ad there that shows a lot of leg.

Because that's one of the ways escort sites advertise.

If you're on the actual site, well, the advertising worked. I wouldn't know what that looks like, though, because I've never had to pay for "company".

Re:What a load of crap.

[NathanWoodruff]

This is the unintended consequences nobody is talking about... https://www.craigslist.org/abo... Nathan

Re:What a load of crap.

[Obfuscant]

Actually, it's more like selling someone a gun, then learning after the fact that they intend to use it to rob a bank, with the slight difference that, in this case, Cloudflare can take the gun back.

Actually you are wrong. The law requires INTENT to do the act, which means BEFORE it happens. It's not finding out afterwards that something bad happened, it's going into the deal explicitly to promote that act.

Unless Cloudflare is selling ISP services with the intent of promoting prostitution and sales of sex services with sex trafficking victims, they aren't a target of the law.

Now, if you want to say Cloudflare should be liable for illegal activities they're aware of, facilitated by their services, and don't take action to stop, we can probably agree on that.

Then you must agree with FOSTA and SESTA, because the intent requirement is exactly what that means.

Re:What a load of crap.

[BronsCon]

Actually you are wrong.

You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote, because nothing you wrote after what I just quoted disagrees with my point. In fact, that's one of two points I was trying to make.

Re:What a load of crap.

[Obfuscant]

I didn't misunderstand, I simply told you that your first sentence was wrong. It is NOT "more like" finding out after the fact that the customer was doing something illegal, it requires knowing BEFORE THE FACT that the intended use is illegal and selling the service WITH THE INTENT of promoting that illegal act.

Additionally, the following statement you made:

except that FOSTA actually puts that liability on Cloudflare even though they have no way of knowing what someone will use their service for

is also wrong, for the same reason. If you have no way of knowing what someone will use the service for, then you cannot have the requisite intent of selling it to them for the promotion of that illegal activity.

I think my comment that you apparently agree with the laws shows I understood that you agreed with the laws.

Re:What a load of crap.

[BronsCon]

I didn't misunderstand, I simply told you that your first sentence was wrong. It is NOT "more like" finding out after the fact that the customer was doing something illegal, it requires knowing BEFORE THE FACT that the intended use is illegal and selling the service WITH THE INTENT of promoting that illegal act.

Ah, I see, you think I was talking about FOSTA, so you did misunderstand. FOSTA came up later in my comment, but the bit you misunderstood there was in response to:

A more apt example would be selling someone a gun when you know they intend to use it to use it to rob a bank. Surprise, that is already illegal!

which, in turn, was in response to:

Imagine a law that says you cannot serve food in restaurants to anyone that either has a felony conviction or is a suspect in an ongoing case in any jurisdiction in the US.

Now, that last one was about FOSTA, but it was also wrong.

Additionally, the following statement you made is also wrong, for the same reason. If you have no way of knowing what someone will use the service for, then you cannot have the requisite intent of selling it to them for the promotion of that illegal activity.

Ah, that logic works fine for a gun, because the gun leaves your store before being used in the commission of a crime (unless it's used to rob your store, of course). It falls apart when referring to a service rendered wholly on your premises, such as the services offered by Cloudflare because, ostensibly, you should know what is being done on your premises. Once it's been used for illegal purposes, you can no longer claim you didn't know; and, unlike a gun, it's not something you sell once and you're no longer involved -- Cloudflare is providing services until they or the client choose to stop.

I think my comment that you apparently agree with the laws shows I understood that you agreed with the laws.

Then you certainly misunderstood.

Before FOSTA, Cloudflare had the option of simply not looking at what their services were being used for and, until and unless someone reported illegal activity to them and they failed to act on that report, they would bear no liability. A prosecutor could rant on and on all day long about intent and, even were they able to convince a judge and a jury that Cloudflare intended to allow these things on their platform, unless they can prove that Cloudflare had specific knowledge, which they could avoid by simply not looking, Cloudflare would have no liability. Now, with FOSTA, they must look; not looking may be construed as intent, as you're effectively (and intentionally) allowing anything and everything that you aren't specifically looking for.

Re:What a load of crap.

[Obfuscant]

Ah, I see, you think I was talking about FOSTA,

Yes, of course. The title of the article here is about FOSTA, the analogy that was presented was about FOSTA, and you refer to FOSTA after you try to present your corrected version of that analogy. Why would I assume you were NOT talking about FOSTA? Just what is your analogy "more like" if not FOSTA?

Ah, that logic works fine for a gun, ... It falls apart when referring to a service rendered wholly on your premises, such as the services offered by Cloudflare because, ostensibly, you should know what is being done on your premises.

That is your assumption, but it does not appear in the law. You must be providing the service WITH THE INTENT, which means before-the-fact knowledge. There is no assumption in the law that any webhosting service knows what traffic is on those websites. The computers may be "on your premises" but that doesn't mean you are required to look inside the computers to see what the data on them is. Here's a more direct analogy: if I rent a storage room at a ubiquitous storage facility, the owner is not responsible for searching that room every few days to make sure I am not doing something illegal with it. DHS could show up at my room with geiger counters screaming away about the stolen radioactive plutonium pu235 space modulator I'm storing inside, but the owner is not responsible for either it being there or not reporting it.

Once it's been used for illegal purposes, you can no longer claim you didn't know;

Of course you can. All it takes is ... not knowing!

Before FOSTA, Cloudflare had the option of simply not looking at what their services were being used for

That's true. And it is also true that AFTER FOSTA they have the option of simply not looking. FOSTA creates no "looking" requirement. FOSTA requires INTENT, and observing a violation of law AFTER you sell something does not create INTENT to sell it for that purpose.

until and unless someone reported illegal activity to them and they failed to act on that report

At THAT POINT, and only at that point, do they incur a responsibility to act. This is a violation of their TOS already, so it is not like FOSTA creates any new responsibility on their part. As well, knowledge of that breach of the law already creates a responsibility to report it. It does NOT create INTENT to sell the service, however, because that has to occur BEFORE THE SALE.

Now, with FOSTA, they must look;

You are wrong. Cite the specific language of the law that creates this responsibility. Don't forget to include the words "with the intent to" in your citation, because that is an overriding requirement.

I thought you were agreeing with the law because you said you could agree with what the law actually says. You misunderstand the law so you don't believe you do. Unless Cloudflare sells the service WITH THE INTENT of promoting illegal prostitution it is not a target of the law. Finding out after the fact does not create that requisite intent no matter how much you want it to.

Re:What a load of crap.

[Obfuscant]

You know showing a lot of leg isn't porn, right? It's one of the ways escort websites advertise, though. Then again, so is porn.

You know that "escort service" is not "prostitution", right? It is a cover name that some pimps use, but just "escort service" is not illegal. A webhosting service that is approached to sell services to "Fred's Escort Service" is not knowingly and intentionally selling service to a site offering illegal prostitution services. FOSTA is not violated if they do sell.

Now, if Fred tells the hosting service that he'll pay them with hookers and blow, THEN you can infer intent and prior knowledge, but if it's just cash, check, or credit card you cannot.

Re:What a load of crap.

[BronsCon]

FOSTA requires INTENT

Oh?

The bill would make websites criminally liable for hosting ads and other content linked to a sex-trafficking enterprise. The result would be a major exception to existing Safe Harbor provisions, and has been opposed by groups like the EFF and ACLU

Well, the EFF and ACLU have staff lawyers. Are you an attorney? No? I'll trust their interpretation, then.

Re:What a load of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or selling a pussy when you know they'll use it for sex!

Re:What a load of crap.

[Obfuscant]

Oh?

Read. The. Law. It's online. The Verge is not a definitive source.

The bill would make websites criminally liable for hosting ads and other content linked to a sex-trafficking enterprise.

Websites, and WITH THE INTENT OF PROMOTING OR FOSTERING. Cloudflare is not a website, they are a web hosting service. They don't have the intent. By the way, if you read the law, it is SESTA that talks about websites.

Well, the EFF and ACLU have staff lawyers.

The EFF and ACLU are hardly unbiased sources. Lawyers will say what you pay them to say. Do you really think that every lawyer who argues that his client is not guilty actually believes his client is not guilty? Do you think a lawyer paid by EFF will say "there's nothing to see here, move along"? My goodness, lawyer's opinions are even more purchasable than scientists', and "everyone knows" that scientists who are paid by energy companies are bought and paid for. Why do we assume lawyers are less flexible?

Re:What a load of crap.

[BronsCon]

You know that "escort service" is not "prostitution", right?

I do. Then again, that has nothing to do with my post, other than the fact that I used the word "escort" the same way the post I was replying to did, primarily so as not to confuse the person to whom I was replying. If you want to correct someone, correct them.

Re:What a load of crap.

[BronsCon]

Cloudflare is not a website [...] By the way, if you read the law, it is SESTA that talks about websites.

Right, that's why I'm talking about the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act.

Re:What a load of crap.

[Obfuscant]

Good job of ignoring the important points and picking out the BTW aside. It's still SESTA that talks about websites, so when you single out websites you are talking about SESTA. FOSTA deals with all online services.

It doesn't matter, the other points I made still stand. You trust lawyers paid to have the opinion you like instead of reading the law for yourself. Why do we even have a criminal justice system if we should just trust the word of the defense lawyer that his client is not guilty? Why would he lie? Why would you expect an EFF or ACLU lawyer to say anything other than the sky is falling because of SESTA or FOSTA?

Re:What a load of crap.

[BronsCon]

It's still SESTA that talks about websites, so when you single out websites...

...then you aren't in this conversation, which is about Cloudflare.

Several times now, you've tried to direct the conversation as though I were talking about one thing when I was clearly talking about another. Sorry, I'm not going to play that game. That would be why I'm not addressing all of your points.

Be gone Trump Eunuch

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, traitor

laws passed whose authors don't understand!

[Anonymous Coward]

yikes. yikes. understatement.
How have we come to this point???

They don't define "Switter"

[DNS-and-BIND]

I wonder why the summary mentions Switter in passing and yet doesn't bother to mention what it is. All part of the typical "victim building" narrative. People might get the idea that some virtuous service was unfairly targeted. Switter is a Mastodon instance that was meant from the outset to facilitate the prostitution of people. The lovely irony here is that the sex traffickers feared being banned by Twitter so they set up their own service. Cloudflare, the site that banned the Daily Stormer, has now banned Switter as well.

The basic thing that the outrage machine either does not realize or is deliberately ignoring is that one of Trump's signature policies is attacking human trafficking. It gets very little press for obvious reasons: it paints him as a good person, and we all know that Trump is nothing less than Adolf Hitler. Didn't Hitler disrupt public spaces and ban things he didn't like the sound of? Oh the irony. This attack inevitably harms the "good" prostitutes right along with the evil human traffickers. The problem is, you can't tell them apart and "legitimate" prostitution platforms are used for evil means. The howl seems to be, "you're hurting all the good ones just to get a few bad apples!"

Luckily, the precedent has already been set: it's acceptable to get rid of 10 if only 2 are guilty. FOSTA is just following in the footsteps of proud people that have blazed the trail.

"If there are 10 people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people. We're not talking about depriving them of life or liberty, we're talking about them being transferred to another university, for crying out loud."

Likewise this Switter prostitution service isn't being deprived of life and liberty, they're being transferred to another internet provider. It's not a big deal. What's that I hear, it is a big deal? So it's not OK to do it to an organization specifically set up to facilitate the prostitution of human beings, but it's OK to do it to humans falsely accused of rape?

Re:They don't define "Switter"

[Anonymous Coward]

What other internet provider? Not one in the USA because ... FOSTA.

Hey I don't know ow if they are legit or not, buy how about the ficking government go take them down instead of making CloudFlare do it?

Re:They don't define "Switter"

[DNS-and-BIND]

Surprise, the internet is global. There are other countries. Tons of them in fact. Jeez, get out of your bubble once in a while. This is just an opportunity for the international community to profit at America's expense by scooping up all this business while the prudish Americans forego the sweet, sweet revenue. Don't we like a good America-bashing?

Re:They don't define "Switter"

[Anonymous Coward]

By the same zany, nonsense logic, we should ban labouring jobs because some people are forced into slave labour.

Re:They don't define "Switter"

[Anonymous Coward]

a few bad apples

The problem is, it isn't "a few bad apples". Human trafficking has reached fucking absurd levels - but it's rather easy to ignore unless you're a victim.

Re:They don't define "Switter"

[DNS-and-BIND]

So where was the outcry back then? There was none. There was general approval. Now, suddenly there's an outrage? How does this work? The same exact thing is being done.

Re:They don't define "Switter"

[Anonymous Coward]

When "human trafficking" stats include ALL prostitutes, of course it looks like a lot. Prostitution does not mean trafficking is happening.

Re:They don't define "Switter"

[Obfuscant]

This is just an opportunity for the international community to profit at America's expense by scooping up all this business

It's pretty hard for someone to "scoop up" all the money from running a prostitution or sex trafficking operation without some physical presence in the country where the operation takes place. I'm not sure how much profit you can make by advertising German hookers in the US, or why you see an issue with prosecuting the sex traffickers who are in the US just because their bosses are in Argentina.

Interesting times ahead

[Anonymous Coward]

FOSTA & the GDPR are going to make operating on the internet interesting soon.

Go on, keep crying wolf.

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, now that the media and every other person has been screaming n shouting that trump will do something stupid(tank economy, make ww3 etc), that he sucks(hang him, impeach him etc) and other nonsensical stuff(small hands, orange hair)... When we need our voice to matter most, we are just todays latest outrage, lost among the various noise that everyone everywhere everyday throws at him.

Good job.

#notusacitizen #usagrad

missionary man

[bigtreeman]

And Donald never used prossies ???
Did he just take them on as apprentices
and teach them about boring missionary sex

Cloudflare TOS gives right to investigate ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Cloudflare Terms of Service gives them the right to investigate clients. However this is not about investigating criminal activity. This is about investigating whether an operator or owner or minor stockholder might be a conservative in case a liberal cause might be advanced by a boycott or something.

>It should not be, at all, trying to decide whether or not a customer's data or business practices are unacceptable in various regions around the world, especially at a level where Cloudflare itself is supposedly criminal liable.

And yet, its TOS says it can do exactly that https://www.cloudflare.com/terms/

SECTION 11: INVESTIGATION Cloudflare reserves the right to investigate you, your business, and/or your owners, officers, directors, managers, and other principals, your sites, and the materials comprising the sites at any time. These investigations will be conducted solely for Cloudflare’s benefit, and not for your benefit or that of any third party. If the investigation reveals any information, act, or omission, which in Cloudflare’s sole opinion, constitutes a violation of any local, state, federal, or foreign law or regulation, this Agreement, or is otherwise deemed harm the Service, Cloudflare may immediately shut down your access to the Service.

Re:Cloudflare TOS gives right to investigate ...

[Anonymous Coward]

you missed that part about " constitutes a violation of any local, state, federal, or foreign law or regulation" I think.

>This is about investigating whether an operator or owner or minor stockholder might be a conservative in case a liberal cause might be advanced by a boycott or something.

I dunno what you're on about

Re:Cloudflare TOS gives right to investigate ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing with FOSTA is that it makes Cloudflare and similar companies liable if they *don't* investigate their clients. It's one thing to keep a TOS around saying you might do something and you are not going to offer your services unless client agrees not to sue if you investigate them. Say, they learn about ClientA doing some really weird stuff, and want to make sure it's not just a rumor, and sever their ties to try and prevent media fallout. All well and good, business as usual, ain't no king like the media after all.

FOSTA goes way past this, and says that Cloudflare is criminally liable for content they end up caching, period.

This is basically a way to have some leverage over all of these network/content providers to ensure that the government can get what they want from them whenever they ask. It's not going to take long for the CIA to prop up a site with some really miserable crap on it through the services that they offer, to give them the proof they need to punish them over FOSTA, after all. I'm sure Putin's giggling right now.

Re:Cloudflare TOS gives right to investigate ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno what you're on about

If Cloudflare were cutting loose a website that helps you find coffeeshops that require you to buy something in order to sit at their tables the "internet" would be cheering. However since they are cutting loose a website involved in the sex trade the "internet" sees the sky falling.

I.e. hypocrisy over "censorships".

Re:Cloudflare TOS gives right to investigate ...

[Obfuscant]

The thing with FOSTA is that it makes Cloudflare and similar companies liable if they *don't* investigate their clients.

No, it does not.

FOSTA goes way past this, and says that Cloudflare is criminally liable for content they end up caching, period.

No, it does not. Have you read the bill? Not just the hype about it or carefully selected excerpts, but all the words? If you did, then you missed the word "intent".

This is basically a way to have some leverage over all of these network/content providers to ensure that the government can get what they want from them whenever they ask.

You do realize, I hope, that there are all kinds of laws that a government can use against anyone they choose if all they want is leverage over them. The IRS is a pretty good tool for that, and has been used before. They don't need FOSTA or SESTA. And such a poor tool it would be. IRS: "Send us copies of all your tax related documentation for the last ten years and prove every deduction or business expense", or even just "we dissallow these deductions, send us a check for the back taxes plus penalty plus interest in the amount of ..."

It's not going to take long for the CIA

'nuff said.

We need an internet blackout campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

Where companies like Cloudflare and Google and Microsoft and Apple and Amazon and all the major players shut down the entire internet infrastructure- displaying a message on how to contact congress and sign a message stating they are against this and that the internet will not return until this bill is reversed. We would have an IMMEDIATE response by congress within 24 hours. An emergency session would be called for because the internet would basically go down.

Sorry don't care

[RightwingNutjob]

The myth of the free and open internet got the last nail in its coffin, in part because of Cloudflare deciding whose traffic they were and were not going to carry. It was fun while it lasted, but c'est la vie.

Re:Sorry don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

Cloudflare is a fucking CDN. They have no obligation to carry anyone's anything. You'll just have to host Stormer on your own instead of hiding behind Cloudflare's address masking and DDoS protection. Poor you.

Re:Sorry don't care

[stdarg]

Why should they get the best of both worlds?

"We'll choose who to do business with based on the content they produce, thank you very much. Oh wait, now you want me to be responsible for those admittedly conscious choices? No way that's unfair!"

U.S. to declare emergency

[Anonymous Coward]

... to curb Chinese investments in sensitive technologies

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-19/u-s-weighs-emergency-powers-to-curb-tech-investments-by-china

Because there are more GOPer than DEMs

[aepervius]

They have the reign of power of all houses THEREFORE they are responsible , no matter what the other party vote.

Re:Because there are more GOPer than DEMs

[Anonymous Coward]

Why have I been told countless times the GOP was responsible for the dumpster fire that was Obamacare, despite none of them voting for it?

No true voter(Scotsman)? If your guy votes for a bad bill, it doesn't count. What a piece of crap you are.

Oh my ...

[MxMatrix]

... trump legislating a bill that frustrates his biggest source of pleasure? That can't be, can it? So where would he get his next prostitutes from then?

Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Crying about stopping child prostitution, claiming it is a 1st amendment issue.
While screaming to censor political speech, of groups like Citizens United.

Says A LOT about them.

You can thank the democrat donors

[Anonymous Coward]

Who turned out to all be pedos.
Even the co-owner of backpage was a big dem supporter. And going straight to jail for child prostitution.

That's what trump always ment by 'the swamp'. he's cleaning up the pedos.
More have gone to jail under trump than any other prez.

And wait till you all see the evidence on hillary. Most of you are going to need drugs and mental help to cope with that evil.

A real solution

[SmaryJerry]

What we need is responsibility on the individual breaking a law, not the carrier of the information. The internet should be like the air, it carries sound from person to person but it isnâ(TM)t the airâ(TM)s fault for doing so. You wouldnâ(TM)t blame the post office because someone used their service to ship a package with illegal drugs in it. The internet and websites that rely on user submitted data such as YouTube, twitter, and yes the hosting providers, need to be allowed to do their job which is carrying the data of the user, without being responsible for that users message. The individual user is responsible for their message. Policing is difficult as users cross cities, states, and countries and have anonymity, but paper mail delivery has the exactly same issues and we donâ(TM)t blame the post office.

Re:A real solution

[Obfuscant]

What we need is responsibility on the individual breaking a law, not the carrier of the information.

These are not completely isolated activities. What if the "information" is the act that breaks the law? "Promoting prostitution" is against the law in many places; "sex trafficking" in many more. If the information is with the intent of promotion then it is already against the law. For example, I cannot legally stand on the street corner and tell people who pull up that they can "pull around the corner to get a bj for $20 from Julie". Conveying that information is, itself, a crime. And if Julie herself stands on the corner and tells someone she'll perform certain acts for $20, conveying THAT information is also against the law.

The new law says that it wasn't the intent of an old law to allow those who are deliberately promoting illegal activities to get off. "With the intent" is a critical part of that law.

You wouldn't blame the post office because someone used their service to ship a package with illegal drugs in it.

If the USPS deliberately advertised themselves as a service to ship illegal drugs, yes, I would. If the USPS found a package of illegal drugs passing through their facility and did not report it to the appropriate authorities, yes, I would. If the USPS offered a service for incoming mail to bypass US Customs with the intent of importing illegal drugs, yes, I would.

Note the common thread to that. The INTENT.

the hosting providers, need to be allowed to do their job which is carrying the data of the user, without being responsible for that users message.

They can still do that, as long as they are not a willing and intentional part of conveying a message that is illegal.

Accountable for Knowingly Assisting Rape? Yes.

[Slicker]

If it is not forced or for lack of a reasonable alternative for survival, I am all for legalizing and regulation of prostitution and sites that facilitate sexual hookups. I even applaud the women her wilfully serve in such roles and they make life better for over stressed and depressed men. It's a good thing.

However, Craigslist and others should be held responsible when they know that a good amount of the hookups going on are with women who have been abducted and forced into sexual slavery. The Internet has caused a massive growth in that crime/industry in the United States. The fact that willing prostitutes rely upon such sites to pre-screen their clients for their own safety does not make up for the criminal use... which frankly, I think is more common--but even if it wasn't.

What's worse, to me as a software engineer, is that it seems to be largely those in the tech industry that take most advantage of these services. Where are most abducted girls taken to service paying men? Silicon Valley, Seattle--near large hubs of tech workers. Paying for prostitution with girls forced into service is worse than mere rape, as if rape isn't bad enough. It is institutionalized rape and rape for which the victims often go to jail, when caught. And it is a huge and horrific stain on the tech industry in the United States.

Guess FOSTA is going to shut down bars now

[Anonymous Coward]

since more than a few are used to trade liquor and goods for sex

just stop

[Anonymous Coward]

This congress (not this congress, I mean any congress in this country) should not be in charge of any legislation remotely concerning technology, period. Not one of them understands any of it. We do need some laws governing technology, but these people aren't qualified. Many of them have been in office since the 70s, too.

one of the real reasons prostitution is illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

I am convinced that it is because "they" (the people in power) know that if it was perfectly legal and anyone could go get nice service in a clean and safe environment there would be a fairly large proportion of men who would become far less inclined to date and/or marry. And the fact is that the exact men that would become most likely to forego dating/marriage would be ones that are relatively successfully financially speaking, i.e., the most eligible of eligible bachelors.

So dating/marriage and the children that frequently follow is a huge driver of the economy both in terms of the direct expenditures and getting young men to "settle down and become productive members of society" and the oligarchy doesn't want that. It wants everyone getting into debt slavery as soon as possible.

Not just women

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking sexists. Men can also be prostitutes. See the wonderful documentary Deuce Bigalow.

Cloudflare just grumpy

[Anonymous Coward]

All they have to do is take action when they are notified of illegal activity on their services. Boo fucking hoo. It's something they were supposed to be doing already. They just want to wave their hands and so 'not our problem' like a child.

If I want to sell my Vagina..

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I should be allowed!

Why does some 70 year old white privileged billionaire and his corrupt congress have the right to deny me of using my vagina how I please?

Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

Crying about individual liberty and personal responsability.
Voting for a law to force the religious ideology of their voting base on every single american.

Says A LOT about them.

Pot, meet kettle.

Kiss the internet goodbye

[lylefile]

Any form of communication can be used to "facilitate prostitution". This is clearly a massive breach of our first amendment freedom of speech. If FOSTA is left to stand then what we'll have is:

            The Internet
                  R.I.P.
            1983-2018

What "CLOUD" is REALLY about (wake up)

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Cloud is REALLY for an easily mined/tracked CENTRAL CHOKEPOINT for information on YOU (like DNS).

* Wake up people...

(Why? It's a HELL OF A LOT EASIER on the "powers that be" to get shit on you from 1 point is WHY vs. a myriad of websites...)

APK

P.S.=> Unbelievable - are there bennies to it? Yes, some (geographic closeness/less hops to a 'destination' via cache & SOME protection via site resource distribution offsite vs. DDoS) but the REAL DEAL is what I write here... apk