Slashdot Mirror
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."
"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."
When the majority of Democrats in the House and Senate voted for this?
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.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
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.
Heaven forbid two consenting adults do whatever the fuck they want, causing no injury to anyone, except for moral busybodies.
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 ...
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.
Yes, we just call it "having my mouthpiece dole out some hush money" now.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Did your ISP subject you to a background check before giving you an account? Since you just volunteered yourself and everybody else for one...?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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.
What makes "online" different that "brick-and-mortar", dipshit ? (beside the level of political contribution)
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.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
By the same zany, nonsense logic, we should ban labouring jobs because some people are forced into slave labour.
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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.
They have the reign of power of all houses THEREFORE they are responsible , no matter what the other party vote.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
>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?
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.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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.
No sig today...
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.
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.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
"Whoosh!"
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
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.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
... 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?
Bach says it all.
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
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.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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.
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.
Next do guns.
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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.
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".
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
So I guess if you are really good at driving fast, speed limits are an imposition on your freedom?
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.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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.
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
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.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
It's one of the primary tools of dictators.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
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.
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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.
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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.
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.
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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?
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.
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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.
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?
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.
No sig today...
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.
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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.
No sig today...