This is so sad. I'm really glad to see PragProg calling out the problem without trying to tip toe around and be politically correct. For anyone new to the FOSTA-SESTA debacle, here's reporting from the EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-...
My impression is that in practice this would only be used to target sites that extensively are shown to be used for trafficking.
On the flipside, super vague laws like "we'll prosecute if we feel like it" are dangerous, and it would have been interesting for more sites to have a "protest day" to show just how unreasonable the law really is.
Additionally, I wonder how many users were using the forum vs. how much it cost to run vs. its benefit to PragProg's bottom line.
As you say it will only be used against the bad guys, until if isn't. Like civil forfeiture, which originally targeted dig dealers, it week expands over time to be anything and everything that runs afowl of some interest.
Well that's the thing about the slippery slope argument... it always leads to jackbooted thugs marching into your living room and by then it's too late
Having heard this argument made so many times in my lifetime, I've been awaiting the sound of the jackboots on the stairwells for decades
This eternal vigilance has now become tiresome. So much to watch for, I don't think I can keep it up
Oh sweet summer child. The police can just take your money. I love how you imagine you have to do something wrong or be opposed to something to trigger this. No. You have money. They can take it.
This is a rough one, because the intent is genuinely good, but - as usual - the implementation is very poor. That always makes it extremely difficult to talk about reasonably with most people.
I doubt that the intent was good at all. Various companies have been trying to get legislation to let them go after (with legal action) websites holding or referencing "illicit online content" (not necessarily sexual in nature) even when such content is user generated. This is just another evolution of SOPA and PIPA carefully given a name that would make fighting it political suicide. It's a fairly common tactic. Even the organizations trying to fight online predation say that at best, SESTA won't do anything to help and more likely than not will hinder their efforts.
I’d say it’s very much up for debate whether the intent was “genuinely good”.
When Congress writes a law which includes ex post facto criminal liability, I don’t care if they claim it’s for the children, it’s foul play and can no longer be considered good intentioned.
Could the forums be hosted in a different country to bypass this? Or could forums be outsourced to a third party hosted in a different country? There should be a business for this, like a Disqus hosted in Switzerland.
Well, that's not that easy. If you host abroad you also subject yourself to the laws of that country. The consequences could be pretty messy, especially if you assume that the laws work the same as in your own country.
E.g. the Americans are used to the first amendment protections even for stuff like holocaust denial, white supremacism, outright racism and similar. However, if your hosting happens to be in Germany (or many other EU countries with similar laws), you will get hammered, because publishing stuff like that is illegal there - the hate speech laws are much tougher and there are also specific laws covering stuff like holocaust, nazism, etc.
Or here in France we have a "wonderful" law that makes it a crime to say anything that could be considered as "apology of terrorism". Basically as little as a tweet saying that "They had it coming" (or something to that effect) in relation to a terrorist attack could land you in legal hot water with a large fine (most common, up to $120000 possible) or even a prison sentence (up to 7 years is possible). And that's not a theoretical thing - there have been several high profile prosecutions like this already, most recently a left wing former MP publicly praising the death of the French police colonel who exchanged himself for a hostage during an attack. He said something to the effect that one more dead cop means fewer cops to attack people (he was referring to a high profile police brutality case here) - but that was enough to get him arrested and will most likely earn him a hefty fine.
Now imagine that you are hosting a forum where people are debating or posting things like that - you will have to cooperate with the authorities, take the posts down and hand over any relevant information about the users involved or you can be held co-responsible for the crime. In such case you could face prosecution, have the website seized, etc.
So not all is rosy on this side of the Atlantic neither.
Regarding the French terrorist attack, it happened in a supermarket and one of the victims was a butcher. One vegan wrote a comment on this death and also got indicted for "apology of terrorism"
Your website would still be potentially liable. (CRIMINALLY. The serious kind of liability. Not just the CIVIL kind of liability.) At least, that's what lawyers have advised me with respect to web forum plans.
That said, I'm a chicken-sh*t when it comes to business. As a general rule, anything that scares attorneys, I stay away from.
Which DOJ official and/or senator is going to go after facebook and reddit? Unless they're openly promoting sex trafficking I don't think the giants are going to have any issues.
Just to be safe, though, reddit did take down any subreddit that discussed prostitution.
The situation is bad enough that Craigslist took down their dating section. And really, any dating site or service (classics like match.com and modern services like Tinder) are easy prey for this law. I saw a headline towards the top of HN that Facebook is dabbling in online dating, which puts the biggest social media company in history in the crosshairs.
In practice, all someone would have to do is post a few underage images to /r/gonewild or similar high-traffic subreddits. Or, for that matter, simply drop random links in unrelated subreddits.
SESTA is a weapon, not a defense. A metaphorical loose cannon.
