The Bullshit Rewriting Of History To Claim FOSTA Took Down Backpage
from the not-how-it-happened dept
I was afraid that this was going to happen. If you don't recall, the official "reason" for why we needed FOSTA (originally SESTA) was that it was necessary to "take down Backpage." In the original announcement about the bill by Senator Portman, his press release quoted 20 Senators, and 11 of them mentioned Backpage.com as the reason for the bill. Not one of them seemed to mention that Backpage had already shut down its adult section months earlier. And, over the months of debate concerning FOSTA/SESTA, we noted that there was nothing in the existing law preventing federal law enforcement officials from taking down Backpage if it were actually violating the law.
And, indeed, before FOSTA was even signed into law, the DOJ seized the website and arrested its founders. Incredibly, even though Backpage was shut down before FOSTA was law, some of the bill's backers tried to credit the bill with taking down the site. The worst was Rep. Mimi Walters, who directly tried to take credit for FOSTA taking down Backpage (even though FOSTA wasn't even signed into law at the time she took credit for it).
Since then, I've been concerned that there will be an attempt to rewrite history to pretend that FOSTA was, in fact, responsible for the criminal prosecution of Backpage. And, it appears that is coming true. Last week, Buzzfeed ran a worth-reading profile of lawyer Marc Randazza, whom we've talked about plenty on this site (sometimes agreeing with him, and sometimes... not agreeing with him at all). I really don't have too much to say about the profile, except that it's unfortunate that Buzzfeed's Joseph Bernstein helps build up the myth that FOSTA was responsible for taking down Backpage:
The state still has the limited power to regulate individuals’ speech. But so too can the state pressure or mandate social platforms to limit what they publish (as it did in FOSTA/SESTA, which forced websites like Backpage to stop hosting ads for sex work, resulting in conditions that sex workers say have endangered them), and so too do social platforms govern the speech of their users.
This is really, really wrong -- and it's unfortunate, because it makes you wonder what other errors might be lurking in Bernsteins' reporting (he's normally a great reporter, but this is a pretty big error). In fact, there was an entirely different law, the SAVE Act from 2015, that made advertising sex trafficking illegal. And, it was grandstanding threats by Congress (way before FOSTA/SESTA) that made Backpage shut down its entire adult section. And it was the DOJ who took down Backpage before even FOSTA was law. So why is anyone reporting that FOSTA helped take down Backpage?
Because that's the narrative FOSTA supporters wanted from the very beginning. It's why so many of the quotes about the introduction of the bill mentioned Backpage. It's why sponsors of the bill falsely claimed Backpage was taken down thanks to FOSTA. But we shouldn't let them rewrite history like this, and reporters like Bernstein shouldn't contribute to this myth. FOSTA wasn't necessary to take down Backpage.
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, fosta, history, intermediary liability, mrac randazza
Companies: backpage
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
THIS is the ant hill you choose to fight on? Okay, you're RIGHT!
But it's adequate reference for the contemporary attitude and efforts.
Does not in least matter whether you are right in fine or large points.
No one but you will ever be concerned, as shown by LACK of comments for an hour now. -- Any after this are completely due to me.
Enjoy your rare "victory", Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: THIS is the ant hill you choose to fight on? Okay, you're RIGHT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so much actually, it's just the few that infest it tend to be really dedicated to reminding people how unhinged/dishonest they are on a regular basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are plenty of people I utterly detest but I don't waste my time on them, I just find people I actually like and spend time with them -- on and offline.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: THIS is the ant hill you choose to fight on? Okay, you're RIGHT!
This is a great slogan you've chosen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: THIS is the ant hill you choose to fight on? Okay, you're RIGHT!
Masnick doesn't even provoke comments, let alone thought. But he DOES provoke hoots! Of late the dissent seems the only real people here, rest are just fanboys and astro-turfing with mere ad hom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: THIS is the ant hill you choose to fight on? Okay, you're RIGHT!
Posting gleefully about the lack of posts isn't worthwhile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: THIS is the ant hill you choose to fight on? Okay, you're RIGHT!
You and I SURE prove that, Rocky! You say nothing worthwhile, and I do, get it?
Not for you. It's a HOOT for me.
You know, in March Masnick was still claiming his traffic isn't down much: he stated -- for once -- about 1.55 million visits through Feb 27. Page views or unique visitors isn't clear, but that's about 57,000 "hits" per day. Now, there aren't 57 unique commenters her per day AT BEST, so I conclude that's page views, NOT unique visitors, else Techdirt has remarkably low impulse to comment. Pick your way to see it, both bad. Don't you think that's interesting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: THIS is the ant hill you choose to fight on? Okay, you're RIGHT!
Maybe if you focused on that John Steele defense fund you might actually have some copyright law getting enforced.
Have a SESTA vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:member last Sunday when you quit here forever ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have to take your medication every day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: THIS is the ant hill you choose to fight on? Okay, you're RIGHT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: THIS is the ant hill you choose to fight on? Okay, you're RIGHT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: THIS is the ant hill you choose to fight on? Okay, you're RIGHT!
If his boss finds out he will be sacked... assuming he has a job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: THIS is the ant hill you choose to fight on? Okay, you're RIGHT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"So... what HAS your new law done again?"
It's not surprising that they'd try to re-write history to claim that FOSTA was responsible to taking down Backpage, as without that should someone ask them exactly what the law has accomplished they're going to be rather stumped for answers.
They could repeat the same tired lies about how it totally decimated sex trafficking, but it would be all too easy for someone to bring up how even police aren't too happy with the law as it makes it harder to catch the criminals and find the victims.
No no, much easier to paint Backpage as the source of all evil and then lie about how FOSTA took it down, such that now evil has been vanquished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Erm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Erm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And it still does not affect???
And what is amiss with this bill??
It covers nothing..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Re:Re
Yeah George O would laugh and shake his head sadly at that doublethink sandwich
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:Re:Re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]