Sex Workers Set Up Their Own Social Network In Response To FOSTA/SESTA; And Now It's Been Shut Down Due To FOSTA/SESTA

from the censorship-at-work dept

Just a few weeks ago we wrote about how a group of sex workers, in response to the passing of FOSTA/SESTA, had set up their own social network, called Switter, which was a Mastodon instance. As we noted in our post, doing so was unlikely to solve any of the problems of FOSTA/SESTA, because it's perhaps even more likely that Switter itself would become a target of FOSTA/SESTA (remember, with FOSTA, the targeting goes beyond "sex trafficking" to all prostitution).

And, indeed, it appears I was not the only one to think so. The organization that created Switter, Assembly Four, put up a note saying that Cloudflare had shut down Switter claiming the site was in violation of its terms of service.

Cloudflare has been made aware that your site is in violation of our published Terms of Service. Pursuant to our published policy, Cloudflare will terminate service to your website.

Cloudflare will terminate your service for switter{.}at by disabling our authoritative DNS.

Assembly Four asked Cloudflare to clarify just what term it had violated and the company has now come out and noted that it reluctantly pulled the plug on Switter out of a fear that it would create criminal liability for Cloudflare under FOSTA/SESTA. Cloudflare was among the companies who lobbied against the bill, and they note that they disagree with the way the bill was drafted -- but given the nature of the law, the company feels compelled to take this action:

“[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.”

Remember, this was a site for sex workers to communicate with each other. It was purely a platform for speech. And it's being shut down because of fears from the vague and poorly drafted FOSTA/SESTA bill. In other words, yet more confirmation that just as free speech experts predicted, FOSTA/SESTA would lead to outright suppression of speech.

I've seen some complaints on Twitter that Cloudflare should have stood up for Switter and not done this. I don't think that's reasonable. The penalties under FOSTA/SESTA are not just fines. It's a criminal statute. It's one thing to take a stand when you're facing monetary damages or something of that nature. It's something altogether different when you're asking a company to stand up to criminal charges based on a law that is incredibly vague and broad, and for which there is no caselaw. Yes, it would be nice to have some companies push back and potentially help to invalidate the law as unconstitutional, but you can't demand that of every company.

I am curious, though, how supporters of FOSTA/SESTA react to this. Do they not care that sex workers want to be able to communicate? Do they not care that social networks are being shut down over this? Do they not care about speech being suppressed?

Filed Under: cdn, censorship, fosta, sesta, sex work, social network, speech, switter
Companies: cloudflare, switter

Feds Ignore First Amendment, Supreme Court Precedent In Seizing Domain Of Social Network For Sex Workers

from the based-on-what? dept

The disturbing trend of the federal government seizing domain names without regard to the First Amendment continues. The FBI, along with the IRS, apparently seized a number of websites associated with MyRedbook.com, and arrested the operator of the site. The FBI notes that the site, which was a social network and resource for sex workers, included advertising that "facilitated prostitution." It also accused the site of money laundering.

However, as the EFF is noting beyond the question of whether or not the FBI should even be in the business of targeting sex workers, there are serious First Amendment questions around such a seizure of a website:

MyRedBook and its companion sites served a large and diverse community of sex workers. The sites functioned as social media platforms, with discussion boards for users in topics from politics to financial tips. It also served as a resource guide with information ranging from explanations of the law as it pertains to sex work to health information. For archived versions of the forums sex workers no longer have access to, click here.

These sites were essential tools for First Amendment protected speech and association—especially important for a community that values its privacy for a variety of legitimate reasons. This platform has been pulled out from under the feet of this community.

As we've discussed many times in the past with regards to the government's seizure of websites, these appear to be classic cases of prior restraint -- the effective equivalent of the government rushing in and smashing the printing presses for a publication. In Ft. Wayne Books. v. Indiana, the Supreme Court is quite clear that the government can't just go in and seize protected speech based on related illegal activity, especially without first holding an adversarial hearing to explore the First Amendment implications. The court noted:

...our cases firmly hold that mere probable cause to believe a legal violation has transpired is not adequate to remove books or films from circulation.

The court is quite clear that the only purpose for which seizure is appropriate in such circumstances is to procure a single copy for the sake of evidence, but not to remove protected speech entirely from circulation. While that case was about RICO claims of racketeering, and this case is about money laundering and prostitution, the same principles should and do apply:

At least where the RICO violation claimed is a pattern of racketeering that can be established only by rebutting the presumption that expressive materials are protected by the First Amendment, ... that presumption is not rebutted until the claimed justification for seizing books or other publications is properly established in an adversary proceeding. Here, literally thousands of books and films were carried away and taken out of circulation by the pretrial order.... Yet it remained to be proved whether the seizure was actually warranted under the Indiana CRRA and RICO statutes. If we are to maintain the regard for First Amendment values expressed in our prior decisions dealing with interrupting the flow of expressive materials, the judgment of the Indiana Court must be reversed.

I can't see any legitimate way that the DOJ/FBI can defend this seizure under such a standard. It clearly took down significant aspects of protected speech based merely on the assertion of related criminal activity, without any sort of adversarial hearing. The First Amendment, and the specific statements of the Supreme Court in this case, clearly forbid such actions.

Filed Under: domain seizures, fbi, first amendment, free speech, irs, money laundering, prostitution, sex workers, social network, supreme court
Companies: myredbook

Russia's Version Of Facebook, VKontakte, Offers Ed Snowden A Job In Data Protection

from the he's-qualified dept

Well this is marginally amusing. Now that Ed Snowden is actually in Russia, apparently a bunch of job offers are flowing in -- including from the somewhat controversial massive social network VKontatke, often called "Russia's Facebook," which is apparently hoping that Snowden might help with data protection, especially as the Russian government is looking to have more access and control over VKontatke (which many in the entertainment industry also insist is a major source for infringing content).

One place that had made an offer, [Snowden's lawyer Anatoly] Kucherena added, was VKontakte, Russia's Facebook rip-off, which also gives users access to a massive trove of pirated music, TV shows, and movies. Pavel Durov, VKontakte's founder, has been fighting off official pressure—prosecutorial summons, searches—in part because the internet wilds of VKontakte are one of the last bastions of freedom in Russia, and the opposition does a lot of its organizing through VKontakte, which is Russia's largest social network. In the last year or so, the government wanted to muscle in, and get a share of the company in order to exercise some control over it. So far, Durov has fought them off effectively, including today's court decision not to charge VKontakte under a new anti-piracy law. How's that for irony?

Who knows what will happen, but imagine Snowden helping to secure Russia's main social network from further government intrusion...

Filed Under: data protection, ed snowden, russia, social media, social network, surveillance
Companies: vkontatke

DailyDirt: Facebook Facebook Facebook...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There's a big IPO coming up that should create a few more Silicon Valley billionaires. Back when Google went public, there were lots of folks joking about how business models were all going to be based on advertising. Just add ads, and your last step would most definitely be "profit." That joke got old, but it doesn't look like business models based on ads have. (At least, not for Facebook.. or Twitter.. or Foursquare...)

• GM hasn't been impressed by the performance of its Facebook ad campaigns. Is it always the poor musician who blames his instrument? [url]
• A bunch of Facebook advertisers say that it can be difficult to pinpoint all the benefits of social networking ads, but getting more "likes" seems to quantify improving brand awareness in an easily-understood way. This is why there will never be a "dislike" button, though. [url]
• Small businesses are still trying to figure out whether or not Facebook ads are worthwhile. Either way, there appears to be more publicity in having a nice story about how Facebook ads don't really have a great return on investment... [url]
• To discover more interesting advertising-related content, check out what's floating around on StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: ads, advertising, branding, ipo, roi, social network
Companies: facebook, gm

Can Facebook Really Bring About A More Peer-to-Peer, Bottom-Up World?

from the reality-distortion-field dept

Mark Zuckerberg's letter to shareholders included in Facebook's IPO filing contains a pretty bold vision for Facebook to not just connect people and enable them to share, but to fundamentally restructure the way that the world works:

By helping people form these connections, we hope to rewire the way people spread and consume information. We think the world’s information infrastructure should resemble the social graph — a network built from the bottom up or peer-to-peer, rather than the monolithic, top-down structure that has existed to date. We also believe that giving people control over what they share is a fundamental principle of this rewiring.

We have already helped more than 800 million people map out more than 100 billion connections so far, and our goal is to help this rewiring accelerate. [emphasis added]

That sounds pretty lofty, but if you recognize that Facebook provides a social networking service that hundreds of millions of people use -- but forget for a moment that it's Facebook -- it's quite a bold "social mission." And there are many examples of how the service has been used as a key tool in affecting change on everything from opposition to the Canadian DMCA to the Arab Spring. There's no doubt that the service makes it easier for people to organize in a more bottom-up way.

But, once you remember that it's Facebook we're talking about, the vision sounds more problematic. Could Facebook ever truly bring about a peer-to-peer, bottom-up network? The notion seems to be an inherent contradiction to Facebook's architecture -- as a centralized, proprietary, walled garden social networking service. Facebook may enable a more bottom-up structure, but it's a bit disingenuous for Zuckerberg to decry a monolithic, top-down structure when Facebook inserts itself as the new intermediary and gatekeeper. As a centralized, proprietary, walled garden service, Facebook is a single point for attacks, control, and surveillance, never mind controversial policies or privacy concerns. Facebook may enable a more bottom-up and peer-to-peer network compared to many things that came before, but there is something fundamentally at odds with a truly distributed solution at the core of its architecture and its DNA.

To realize the full potential of bottom-up, peer-to-peer social networking infrastructure, we need autonomous, distributed, and free network services -- the sort of vision that StatusNet/Identi.ca or Diaspora have tried to bring about. Rewiring the world to create a more bottom-up, peer-to-peer network is a bold vision for Zuckerberg to put forth -- and one that Facebook has advanced in many ways -- yet it's fundamentally at odds with the reality of Facebook as a centralized and proprietary walled garden.

Filed Under: bottom up, peer to peer, social network
Companies: facebook

Could BitTorrent Be The Distributed Social Network People Have Been Clamoring For?

from the it's-got-the-distribution... dept

One of the key things we've been noting over the past few months is how many more people are beginning to recognize the benefits of having systems and services that really are more distributed and decentralized, rather than very centralized. The problems with centralized systems should be obvious: not only are there single points of failure where a single mistake can knock out the entire system, but it also puts a single party in control as well. And that can lead to problems, say, when it comes to handing over private information to the government (or companies) without proper legal process.

Among the areas that have grown up with very centralized systems are various social networks, such as Facebook. In response, there's definitely been a call for alternative, more open and more distributed social networking systems, such as Diaspora, which has received a ton of hype, but still has a long, long way to go.

But could another player enter the space and have the infrastructure in place to make it work? It appears that BitTorrent is betting yes. The company is launching its new, much more user friendly Chrysalis interface for its software, which really goes a long way in moving the software towards being a media manager program: But that's not what's really interesting here. It appears that BitTorrent is effectively trying to move into the distributed social networking space, while also disrupting the business models of various cloud storage offerings at the same time (a twofer!). On the social networking side of the game, the company recognizes that a big part of the success of Facebook is in sharing personal content such as photos and movies, so it's building off of its underlying technology to let groups and individuals create "channels" in which such content can be shared (not in a weakly compressed format either, but fully) and commented on:

If it works, you could see some pretty compelling ideas come to life. For example, it would be easy to build a group around, say, a wedding or a party, and have all attendees easily share their photos and videos from that event, allowing everyone to comment on them, etc. And it could work entirely using the BitTorrent infrastructure underneath -- meaning more efficient and often faster distribution of the content. The channels can be shared widely or narrowly, depending on users' preferences.

And it's all done in a distributed manner.

That point is where it starts to get pretty interesting. There were recently all of those concerns about Dropbox, but you could see how something like this might provide a very compelling alternative.

That's not to say there aren't huge challenges. While the company has a massive installed base for its technology, many of its users probably have never thought about BitTorrent in this context, and it's not always so easy to enact that kind of context and perception shift. The product is also still early and may be lacking in some random "killer" feature that really makes it catch on. However, it does strike me as really intriguing, and as more and more examples of problems with more centralized systems spring up, you could definitely see more people gravitating to a distributed solution like BitTorrent's. On top of that, the company is working hard to get its software embedded directly into a variety of consumer electronics offerings, making it easier to have the necessary software installed to make use of some of these new sharing features. Finally, as part of the process, the company has also made it really easy to share content even with those who don't already have a BitTorrent client installed -- setting up what's effectively a one-click email download "package," so if you want to send a bunch of pictures to your family, for example, they'll get an email that has them download the client software, prepopulated with the channel in question with all the photos.

As someone who thinks it's important to have more distributed systems and get further away from relying on single centralized systems with too much control, but who's also been skeptical of previous attempts at such distributed systems, I have to say that this is a lot more interesting and compelling.

Filed Under: bittorrent, distributed, social network
Companies: bittorrent

How Should Facebook Respond To The Social Network Movie?

from the tread-carefully dept

As you probably know by now, there's a movie coming out this fall, called Social Network, which is sorta, kinda, maybe an extremely fictionalized version of the story behind Facebook. It was based on a book by Ben Mezrich, which was already a fictionalized account of the founding of Facebook -- based on notes from a disgruntled co-founder, with Mezrich taking significant creative license to fill in lots of blanks. Then, famed writer Aaron Sorkin wrote the script, passing it through a second fictionalized filter. And, not surprisingly, the folks at Facebook are not at all pleased with the movie, which doesn't exactly portray Mark Zuckerberg or Facebook in a very nice light.

Apparently Facebook execs are debating what to do about the movie, and it's almost surprising that they haven't tried to take legal action -- because that's almost what you'd expect these days. Of course, they probably realize that doing so will only get the movie more attention (though, it certainly looks like the movie is going to get plenty of attention already). Yet in an age where "publicity rights" lawsuits are becoming more common and many movie makers feel they need to secure the rights of anyone and any company that shows up in a film, it's actually somewhat surprising that this particular film actually was made.

But given that Facebook execs are trying to figure out what to do about the film and how to respond to it, I'm curious what folks here think. I think I would go with the simplest of all solutions: a single page that explains why the movie is a greatly fictionalized account, and not an accurate depiction of either the company or its employees, past or current, and then just stay quiet otherwise. What else would you suggest?

Filed Under: aaron sorkin, facebook, mark zuckerberg, movies, social network
Companies: facebook

Social Network Status Updates Come Back To Bite You

from the is-nothing-private? dept

Lots of people wrestle with the question of what in their lives is public or private, particularly as they put more of them online. But it may pay to err on the side of caution, as plenty of instances continue to pop up to remind us that really, very little, if anything is private once it's online. Take the case of a Philadelphia Eagles stadium worker, apparently fired after he called the team "retarded" in a status update, for letting a player sign with another team. Or the New York City cop, whose update that he was watching the movie Training Day -- which features Denzel Washington as a cop who doesn't play by the rules -- in order "to brush up on proper police procedure" helped a suspect beat a gun-possession charge. Part of the issue is that as people get more and more friends online, even stuff they think is private essentially becomes public. That will undoubtedly have an effect on people's online behavior, and could hamper the growth of social networking and online life-sharing.

Filed Under: public, social network, status

If You're On A Jury, You Probably Shouldn't Ask Your Facebook Friends For Their Guilty/Not Guilty Votes

from the just-a-suggestion dept

Apparently, a woman in the UK came up with a rather novel approach to "crowdsourcing," when she used Facebook to ask her friends how they would vote in a criminal case for which she was on the jury. Not surprisingly, using Facebook in this manner got her kicked off the jury pretty quickly. Of course, I would guess this isn't the best way to get out of jury duty either, as I'd imagine such a stunt would put you at risk of getting charged with contempt of court as well.

Filed Under: crowdsourced, jury, poll, social network
Companies: facebook