SESTA's First Victim: Craigslist Shuts Down Personals Section
from the more-to-come dept
It's not like people didn't warn about this. But, following Congress passing SESTA (likely to be signed soon by the President), a bunch of sites are already starting to make changes. Craiglist is probably the most notable, announcing that it was completely shutting down its Personals Section:
US Congress just passed HR 1865, "FOSTA", seeking to subject websites to criminal and civil liability when third parties (users) misuse online personals unlawfully.
Any tool or service can be misused. We can't take such risk without jeopardizing all our other services, so we are regretfully taking craigslist personals offline. Hopefully we can bring them back some day.
To the millions of spouses, partners, and couples who met through craigslist, we wish you every happiness!
This is interesting on multiple levels, since the moral panic against online sites that eventually resulted in SESTA actually did start with Craiglist nearly a decade ago, with various state Attorneys General ganging up on the company -- despite no legal basis -- even threatening criminal charges. Because of all that, Craigslist eventually shut down its "adult" section, which was really what pushed Backpage into the spotlight.
And, as we noted last fall, a recent study showed that when Craigslist shut down its adult section, there was a dramatic increase in homicide, which many attributed to sex workers being unable to use the website to screen clients and protect themselves.
But, either way, the site dropped its adult section entirely all the way back in 2010. And, yet, now it realized it must shut its entire personals section, or potentially face crippling criminal liability. Remember how all the SESTA supporters insisted that SESTA would only target those willfully supporting sex trafficking and wouldn't do anything against other sites? That's already been proven wrong.
There are some additional reports of sites or online services no longer working, though it's not clear if any of them are directly because of SESTA or not, and at least some of them appear to be "escort" sites, which SESTA was clearly targeting anyway (so not "collateral" damage). Some are also suggesting that Reddit closing some subreddits is connected to SESTA as well, though the link there is not entirely clear either.
But a straight up "personals" site like Craigslist? It's certainly at risk (as is any online dating site) of being declared in violation of SESTA. We'll be seeing the fallout from SESTA for quite some time.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cda 230, censorship, dating, free speech, intermediary liability, personals, sesta
Companies: craigslist
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Slight correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Slight correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slight correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Slight correction
The Hive Mind and group think came first! Just as natural as the survival instinct that drives bias and bigotry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Slight correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Slight correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Slight correction
https://i0.wp.com/greatestmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/FB_IMG_14406844172841.jpg ?w=547&ssl=1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"That's already been proven wrong"
The rationale would be something like "just because Craigslist (claims to) believe that SESTA would be used against it if it doesn't shut down its personals section, doesn't mean Craigslist is right; the fact that SESTA doesn't target sites not willfully engaged in sex trafficking means that Craigslist is either wrong, or engaged in grandstanding". (Taking that "fact" as true on the same basis as the previous assertions of it did.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "That's already been proven wrong"
The general public is chock full o' morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "That's already been proven wrong"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "That's already been proven wrong"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "That's already been proven wrong"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "That's already been proven wrong"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "That's already been proven wrong"
Whoever thought up this misguided legislation should be placed in the stocks and have rotten fruit thrown at their heads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, sounds like you got it just fine. It was never about the victims they hid behind, this was always about a cheap bit of PR, and to hell with the consequences for others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SHOULD BE risk to host "personals": long been solicitations,
What's the problem? How am you or I harmed?
Until QUANTIFY it (as you demanded for piracy / copyright infringement), you're just spreading predictive FUD, as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SHOULD BE risk to host "personals": long been solicitations,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SHOULD BE risk to host "personals": long been solicitations,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SHOULD BE risk to host "personals": long been solicitations,
C'mon wiLLie... Now how will you find a "date" for the weekend?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SHOULD BE risk to host "personals": long been solicitations,
Even if you and Mike weren't harmed there's plenty of people being harmed, not only honest sex workers and their customers. I've been seeing stories about people who met via CL popping up all around and ended up building a family.
This kind of question is typical of sociopaths who can't see beyond their own noses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SHOULD BE risk to host "personals": long been solicitations,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the United States, they came first for the personals sections, and I didn't speak up because I didn't use the personals sections....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SHOULD BE risk to host "personals": long been solicitations,
You have had the ability to speak in a perfectly legal manner removed from you. Whether or not you actually chose to speak in this way or in that venue is irrelevant to the fact that it's been arbitrarily removed from you.
I hope you're not the regular moron who whines about being censored whenever people tell him to shut up, by the way. The irony would be thicker than your usual persona.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How long?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh no?
Non sequitur. I can perfectly well target exactly your neighbor with a nuclear bomb. Sure, your town will be gone as well but that does not imply me missing the target.
You call that terrorism, striking at the heart of society and the ends justifying the means?
Well, you aren't wrong but don't change the topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Have A Plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws are for those that don't write them
Strangely enough I suspect that even if you did manage to slip something through, assuming they even have sites that the public can comment on, not one prosecutor would be interested in going after a politicians and/or political group.
With a non-government site, clearly the site should be held responsible if they don't catch everything.
With a government site, clearly the people posting should be liable if they post something in violation of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, since the personals section is gone, we have an army of nutjobs, which had been occupied by their misguided mission, on the loose.
I don't expect those loonies to declare their mission accomplished and retire. They'll fine a new goal. What kind of a goal? I don't know, but sure it will be similarly misguided and harmful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Web, here we come
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dark Web, here we come
They made using and providing sex services more dangerous? Yay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pro-censorship groups cheering
Those who seek to censor the world are cheering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pro-censorship groups cheering
They should try to eradicate gravity, it's a major cause of orthopedic injury. And I suspect it's a more feasible goal ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pro-censorship groups cheering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pro-censorship groups cheering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pro-censorship groups cheering
Hey now, free speech and the ability of others to engage in acts between consenting adults is far less important than the feelings of some child pretending to be an adult, who simply cannot stand the idea that there might exist something they find offensive.
If stomping on free speech and risking lives is what it takes to make sure that they can go through life slightly less offended(can't not be offended after all, where would be the fun in that?), then it's a sacrifice they are valiantly and bravely willing for others to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pro-censorship groups cheering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pro-censorship groups cheering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah the irony...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You might say... its a human problem that people like you play identity politics with and hypocritically accuse others of as if you don't do the very same yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
By your logic, saying that only Nazi's advocate for killing black people is also playing identity politics. Or are you saying that we're all hypocrites for hating on Nazis because we do the same thing?
Note, he's not saying conservatives are wrong about everything, just this specific thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are feminist SJW types who also hate prostitution and pornography and try to ban it.
The trouble here is that this SESTA nonsense is based on "principles," not on empirical evidence. Result: none of them care what harm is done as long as they can a) at least TRY to scare some people straight and b) satisfy their damn principles.
While I'm socially conservative and don't approve of porn, etc., I'm aware that it's a demand-side problem. Fixing the cause, i.e. people wanting it, is a hell of a lot harder than Being Seen To Be Doing Something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did i say prostitution, I meant "personal ads"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How could sex trafficking even occur on Craigslist anymore?
The only way this could make sense is if pimps across America had collectively planned on doing a free fuckmeat giveaway -- this weekend only -- but got thwarted by the quick-thinking administrators at Craigslist.
* Okay, so you still get some losers on there thinking they're being clever by putting stupid euphemisms in their ads like "gen r us only" and "looking for gentleman", but they get flagged in like two seconds after being posted.
** Not counting film-and-blackmail operations on high-profile targets, of course, but those targets typically don't use Craigslist and you're very unlikely to get a random VIP with a Craigslist ad. Asterisks are neat-o.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How could sex trafficking even occur on Craigslist anymore?
Isn't it grand that because everybody usually pays their own costs, the US legal system can be used to bankrupt a company while losing every case against them, especially when the attacks are on the taxpayers dime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They didn't just shut down the personals
Techdirt could put up its own personals section if it feels so principled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The argument on the other side is that the ads help law enforcement, kind of like how legalized bookmaking helps catch fixed sporting events (paper trail), but no children are violated just because Slam Dunk U shaved points against Catholic St.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a serious problem with or without Craiglist, and it's not their job to stop it. Which is why leaving the ads, with co-operation with anything required by law enforcement, is the best solution. They're keeping silent, because they'll be blamed somehow for the negative consequences whatever happens unless they do stay quiet.
"The argument on the other side is that the ads help law enforcement, kind of like how legalized bookmaking helps catch fixed sporting events (paper trail), but no children are violated just because Slam Dunk U shaved points against Catholic St."
See, what you did there seems to be a good example of what's going on here. You recognise that leaving the extra information available for law enforcement is important and effective. But because it's about "the children", you'll demand that something be done, even if that "doing something" actually makes things worse.
The fact that victims are suffering while these ads are visible is no reason to make them suffer worse by removing the ads and making it hard for authorities to investigate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]