Nobody. It's my own opinion. Mike's however, seems to be a carbon copy, almost point for point, with Wyden's. Considering his close relationship with Wyden (including guest posts here) it's not hard to imagine them having a chat about the topic or Mike getting an email with talking points.
It might not be true, but it looks way to similar to be missed!
The scale of the site creates a legal nightmare for them - and only section 230 has kept them from massive legal problems.
The problem here is that section 230 has created a special situation where a company can effectively ignore pretty much all the laws by saying "user generated content", but at the same time have no obligation to know who the users are who are generating the content. It creates a situation where the site isn't liable (section 230 to the rescue) and at the same time the user isn't liable because there is no way to track them down. All you need for a Twitter account is a disposable email address (yahoo, gmail, or any list of others) and away you go. Use TOR or VPNs, and you are effectively 100% anonymous, so you can libel, slander, offer illegal services and nobody is responsible.
That's just f--ked up, plain and simple.
It's one of the reasons why Facebook is actually a superior platform in many ways. The actual user is most often clearly identified (there are fake accounts, but at about 10% they are pretty good with it and working to improve). Facebook also has quite a reactive user flagging and reporting system that helps to keep things clean. They are committing more resources and people to it, and they understand that their business model in no small way depends on it.
So a move to repeal / remove protection for a very small part of section 230 to specifically prohibit what is already illegal everywhere else seems normal and reasonable. It's something that needs to be done. Taking money out of the sex trade ecosystem is a good step towards making it less profitable and thus, perhaps fewer victims.
Re: Re: Re: Re: What Should Blogs Do If SESTA Passes?
Ambitious DAs will use RICO and dog walking statutes to get you if they feel the desire. That's not an issue.
All of the arm waving is about something that sites generally don't do: they don't run ads for sex workers, and don't allow links to escort / porn sites.
Mike is really waving his arms on this one - clearly he got the Wyden talking points memo!
I think the key line in all of this is " by any person who violates section 1591".
So now, the civil case cannot be made unless a violation of 1591 is shown, which would normally lead to criminal charges. Any lawsuit which hinged on the concept of " by any person who violates section 1591" would pretty much be on hold until the criminal part is complete.
If the state AG's failed to file charges, they would have a very hard time in a lawsuit. They would be suing someone for something that violated the law, yet they are not actually enforcing the law on the criminal side.
I can see a clear path to a very quick dismissal, with prejudice and collection of legal fees.
What you are missing is that many of the girls (and boys for that matter) who are working as prostitutes aren't doing it willingly. They are held as slaves, through intimidation, threats, drugs, and so on and forced to have sex with strangers - and almost all the money (if not all the money) goes to the pimp.
Many of the girls involved are runaways, underage, and so on. It's very much totally out of control.
Ignorance is believing that this law is intended for or could easily be applied to all sites without any regard for the content of the law.
The law isn't broadly worded. It uses two very slippery words, both of which we know generally the courts set a pretty high standard for (see Youtube case). Knowingly is simple. If you are selling ads to prostitutes, and you know it, and you publish them anyway... ding.
if you leave those ads up even knowing that prostitution is illegal, and if you offer help to write the ads to avoid legal problems (avoiding specific words that get them arrested) then you are facilitating.
If your site does neither of those things, then the law won't apply to you at all.
"'What happens if someone with an axe to grind decides that what they consider a 'good' site and and what TD considers a trusted site is widely different, such that clearly TD isn't really trying?'"
Your question is nonsense.
First off, the idea of trusted sites is basically to allow people to post links (without moderation) to sites like say EFF or Wikipedia - or say perhaps MSM sites. It's not anything more than that. It's just to help keep your moderation queue down a bit. Not many comments here come with links in them (maybe 1 in 100) so whitelisting a few would solve the problem.
Second, I am not getting your angle here. Someone with an axe to grind? First off, they would have to show the other site wasn't good (ie, was doing something illegal) and then would have to show that Techdirt facilitated that site getting traffic. So you are pretty far down the rabbit hole already.
"that idea also assumes that the only way to include a link is to list it directly"
If you don't want your link in moderation, don't use URL shorteners. Direct link and avoid problems. If you use a very short white list, pretty much everything else ends up in moderation when it has a link it in. Problem resolved.
It's especially relevant for Techdirt, which already sticks those posts in moderation - it's not like they would need to do anything other than what they already do.
"While you're at it perhaps you can point to the text laying out what sites have to do such that they are liable, in particular the exact definitions of things like 'knowingly' and 'facilitate'."
We all know those two words are legally slippery. However, we also know that in the case of Youtube. the standard for it is pretty high.
Does Techdirt have adult listings? Does Techdirt generally allow spam postings? Does Techdirt moderate their site? The answers are NO, YES, and YES - which shows a site which isn't knowingly aiding prostitution and isn't making it easy for them to get traffic (ie, facilitating).
It's pretty basic, actually. I know Mike is in a tizzy against anything that even pecks away a small corner of the overbroad section 230 protections, but seriously, the points are way, way, way, over the top and bear no relation to any application of such a law.
I think the point here is that people's bad actions, without the amplifier of the publishing website, would be about the same as a frog farting in a swamp.
"Also, it only takes one bad post/link to slip through to put the site in trouble."
That isn't at all true. You have to consider what the case would look like in court. "Yes Judge, we found this site all about parts for Ford Mustangs, and on the 100,000 posts and comments, we found a single spammer that linked to an escort site!". Do you honestly think that it would even get into court? It would be a very poor case to try to fight.
Most importantly, a single post would most certainly not rise to the level of facilitating anything, except perhaps spam.
Mike doesn't want to tell you that, because outrage at SESTA only stands up when you deal with such scary scenarios that just don't play out in real life.
"we'd need to review every comment before it went on the site."
That's part of the FUD. Print sites have the time to do so and a limited space, so they review before publishing to get varied points of view (or to support what they like).
Online doesn't work that way only because it's a choice in how you have set your site up. I know a number of sites that have 100% moderated comments, and still get plenty of action.
SESTA would also not make you have to moderate every comment. That is very, very misleading.
"The whole nature of the internet is that it's a communications medium -- meaning open communications -- rather than a broadcast medium involving gatekeepers reviewing every bit of content and only allowing some through."
I think the problem you have, however, is that you have mixed the publishers and the communications part of things together in your mind, and you seem unable to separate them.
We all know that Techdirt has moderation. You already filter out pretty much anything that would be a problem, such as posts with too many links, posts from IPs you think are TOR nodes, and so on. I doubt that Techdirt would have to do a single thing in the face of SESTA.
That level of moderation isn't an unreasonable expectation of a site. After all, it is your site, your name on the door, and your name above every post.
"You move from a world of permissionless discussion, to only those with the stamp of approval can discuss."
Another dishonest statement. With very basic moderation to avoid linking to bad things, the average site is still wide open and there is no requirement to "approve" discussions. What do you think would be stopped, exactly? Do you think the comments on this site would be much different? I don't think so.
"Why would you support such a move?"
I don't support strawmen. Creating a monster under the bed scenario to scare the kids isn't helping your stand much at all.
Think about it. Just allow the usual list of sites you might link to (any site that Techdirt has linked a story from, as an example) and everything else goes to moderation.
"The law is stupid and dangerous, and one of the main reasons for this is how vague it is, such that there is no clear 'Do X and you're safe', 'Do Y and you're not'."
I don't know, I find it pretty clear. Don't tolerate posters linking to unknown sites, pay attention to your site, and don't be afraid to moderate. Otherwise, everything seems normal.
Oh, yeah, I forgot, don't open a section that's call "happy endings massages and nude hour long dating services, adults only". That likely will keep you in the clear!
Wordpress sites can basically take anything with a link in it and have it automatically go to moderation (there is a setting for that). Site owners could modify their themes such that any comment poster doesn't get a link off their name (a typical spamming technique).
Honestly, you don't have to do anything you were not doing already. Your Speciality Camera Lens Blog isn't promoting prostitution or anything like that in and of itself, and normal moderation takes care of the rest - just like you would do today.
The only sites that have anything to fear are sites who allow comments like the example on their sites.
The truth is, SESTA will likely make some of you actually consider what you allow on your sites. It may change things from "wide open, have at'ter boys" to at least lightly moderated and slightly restricted.
Techdirt already does this, which makes the arm waving about SESTA seem a little over the top. Post too many links in a post, use whatever they have flagged as "TOR", or a litany of other petty offenses and boom, your post goes to "moderation". That means it never shows up on the site until Leigh gets off his duff to press the okay button, which is usually quite a bit later.
Default judgement. They pretty much could have asked the judge to say Santa is real and the judge would have signed off on it. It's not about SOPA or not SOPA - it's a default judgement.
Posting a bad review of your job on glassdoor or whatever isn't whistleblowing. Spend a while cruising the site, and you will find mostly malcontents who didn't fit into a company's culture ragging on about how they didn't get the right type of coffee machine in their department. It's laughable.
Nobody wants to drag them into the light. Who cares, right?
Now, the real whistle blowers generally aren't going to be posting their grand expose on a job review site. They are going to be emailing wikileaks or sending anonymous emails to CNN or whatever. If they have a story to tell, they will want to tell it. Again, nobody is dragging them into the light.
However, if someone does happen to mention something that might prove to be have probative value or might help authorities with an ongoing investigation, would it not be good for police to be able to discreetly make contact with them?
You know discreet - a gag order summons for personal information so they can try to find the person and talk to them - without dragging them into the light.
Seems they went pretty far out of their way to keep this out of the light, but Glassdoor themselves seem intent on making it public. Perhaps you should get angry with them, they seem to be the one shining the bright lights around.
The question of balancing between absolute anonymous posting runs soundly up against plenty of legal issues. In this case, it appears to be that the posters potentially know details of a crime which has happened, but are not giving that information to law enforcement. There is also the general question of slander and libel.
Branzburg may actually be reasonable to apply here, for a very simple reason that Techdirt has pushed time and again: Everyone is a reporter. When you choose to right a report / story on Glassdoor (or anywhere else for that matter) you are reporting. It's perhaps going all the way to the end of the ball field to get a favorable judgement, but it doesn't appear to be far off.
As someone else (who was censored) mention here, what about a conversation overheard in a bar? A grand jury could very easily request records for credit card transactions or even video of the bar to figure out who the person was. A bar and a website are, essentially, both privately owned businesses. The rules should apply more or less equally here.
As for the chilling of speech, let's be fair here. If you are having second thoughts about muck slinging your previous company because you might face legal problems, perhaps chilling your speech is the best option. Hoping that a wafer thin "everything online is anonymous" concept will protect you is just wrong. To be honest, the internet has warmed speech to levels that really make no sense at times, perhaps a little chilling would be a good idea.
"Comcast has a poor understanding about how it works. The FCC cannot order any state, which is a sovereign entity, from passing or enforcing laws that each state passes. The FCC cannot even prevent states from passing or enforcing its own laws."
Not exactly correct. Wireless communications is one of those "exclusively federal" things. Individual states are not allowed to create laws in relation to wireless communication, license airwaves, or regulate to a certain extent those companies involved.
It is likely that any State law regulating wireless companies would be fought in court, and that fight would be headed by the FCC.
So Comcast is in fact complaining to exactly the right people.
While the FCC cannot stop them from passing stupid laws, they can immediately go to court, and seek an injunction against the law. In fact, it would almost be required as they must protect the federal powers in this area.
Companies like Comcast could go after the states, but they would be in a weaker position if the FCC wasn't part of the deal.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think it's as hard as you trying to make it seem
Well, such a company would not encourage such behavior, and more than likely spend plenty of time making sure that cards and stickers don't stay around their phone booths. Probably every visit to collect coins includes cleaning things up.
Now, if they put an extra board next to the phone and said "post your adult service ads here", you know it would be a different game, right?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think it's as hard as you trying to make it seem
"There is legal adult stuff"
Yes there is, but it's mostly physical product stuff. You can easily handle "legal adult" without any problems. But when you throw it in a pile with a bunch of pimps and sex traffickers, you pretty much kill the whole thing.
"SESTA is worse that the usual politicians banning the means of committing a crime"
A couple of things here. I think that if something is a crime anywhere EXCEPT the internet, then the politicians are pretty much spot on in trying to make the laws line up. The internet shouldn't be a special pass to ignore the law.
I also think that crime is generally made up of motive and opportunity. Various players in the sex trade have different motives, but the opportunity happens only when the motivated customer meets the motivated seller. It's the narrow part of the road. It's pretty logical to work on keeping the motivated parties apart and unable to complete a transaction. It is also not stupid to raise the legal risk in making such a transaction happen so people on the fence perhaps don't get enough motivation to pay for sex. Adding risk, making it more dangerous, and making it harder to find are all good steps towards eliminating the casual customers from that trade.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think it's as hard as you trying to make it seem
"As as before, knowing a category is popular does not mean you know what's in that category. It's not 'willful blindness' to not know everything that's on your site, that's a fact of reality for any platform that's open to the public and that isn't going to pre-vet everything."
Makes no sense. Your most popular category, the only one you charge for, and you purposely avoid knowing what's in it? Sorry, you are arguing something that isn't logical.
"As for 'that wouldn't work', that's just tough, because it's one of the possible responses to avoid liability. 'We don't know what's on the site so the idea that we 'knowingly' allowed/facilitated anything is absurd.'"
It's not really possible. Nobody can be 100% ignorant of their site. They certainly cannot be ignorant of a special section with the type of ads they remove from every other part of their site. It would assume they never see page stats, never have to review a single post, etc. Not really possible.
" Do you think there is any such thing as a legal adult ad, such that sites should be allowed to host them? "
I think you are a little wrapped up in strange view. There are very few things that you can advertise that you don't want to show to minors. Most of them are phsyical products (sex toys, vaping equipment, etc) that can easily be put in their own categories and restriced. Adult Services is pretty much limited to escorts and full body massage places. Once you understand the difference, it's easy to see why few if any of the truly adult ads would ever be for legal services.
"While you're at it perhaps you can point to the part of the proposed bill that defines what 'knowingly facilitating' means. Is knowing that a service has been used in the past for illegal activity and not having stopped it from every happening again enough, or do they need to know about a specific violation and let it pass the bar that needs to be met? Again, small bill, so should only take you a few minutes"
That would be a court's decision. I think however that (a) knowing that prostitution is illegal in your area, and (b) the ads in question are offering "escort services" and (c) you created a category specifically for them, curate them, and perhaps even charge for their listings would likely be enough.
On the other hand, a random posting in the comments on Techdirt wouldn't rise to the level required. Techdirt would remove it quickly enough, Techdirt doesn't have an "escort listings by city" on their site, and so on.
"What you can do however is send a message to your state's AG, who can file a suit against backpage for doing that. "
The state AGs can and have done that already. The law changes nothing, anyone can file a lawsuit, and it can be thrown out if it's not valid. I think this law actually raises the bar, because in specifying victims, they will likely need to show a crime. Raising the bar is good, no?
"The 'piper' in this case hasn't used the tools they already had, and are now demanding that someone else do the impossible while they take all the credit."
The piper has used the tools. Section 230 blocks almost all of them. It holds the sites have no responsibility, and equally exempts the sites from knowing their customers and providing that information in response to lawsuits or legal action. Except for the incredibly tedious whack a mole of contacting a single listing, arranging a meeting, hoping like hell the girl actually says the wrong words, and then moving the case to court isn't going to fix the problems that are out there.
Removing some of the money from the sex abuse eco system will almost certainly make a difference.
On the post: Ron Wyden Puts A Hold On SESTA And Warns About Its Dangers
Re: Re:
It might not be true, but it looks way to similar to be missed!
On the post: Will Sheryl Sandberg And Facebook Help Small Websites Threatened By SESTA?
Re: Re: Re: Isn't kidnapping and slavery already illegal?
Answers: Not on anymore, She's a nutjob, I love old style blaxploitation movies (corny mostly), and Seagal is a knob and possibly a sex offender.
So no, none of them are a source. Actually, Backpage is my source in this case.
On the post: How The Internet Association's Support For SESTA Just Hurt Facebook And Its Users
Re: Re: Re: Re: Vague FUD.
The scale of the site creates a legal nightmare for them - and only section 230 has kept them from massive legal problems.
The problem here is that section 230 has created a special situation where a company can effectively ignore pretty much all the laws by saying "user generated content", but at the same time have no obligation to know who the users are who are generating the content. It creates a situation where the site isn't liable (section 230 to the rescue) and at the same time the user isn't liable because there is no way to track them down. All you need for a Twitter account is a disposable email address (yahoo, gmail, or any list of others) and away you go. Use TOR or VPNs, and you are effectively 100% anonymous, so you can libel, slander, offer illegal services and nobody is responsible.
That's just f--ked up, plain and simple.
It's one of the reasons why Facebook is actually a superior platform in many ways. The actual user is most often clearly identified (there are fake accounts, but at about 10% they are pretty good with it and working to improve). Facebook also has quite a reactive user flagging and reporting system that helps to keep things clean. They are committing more resources and people to it, and they understand that their business model in no small way depends on it.
So a move to repeal / remove protection for a very small part of section 230 to specifically prohibit what is already illegal everywhere else seems normal and reasonable. It's something that needs to be done. Taking money out of the sex trade ecosystem is a good step towards making it less profitable and thus, perhaps fewer victims.
On the post: Dear Senators Portman & Blumenthal: What Should Blogs Do If SESTA Passes?
Re: Re: Re: Re: What Should Blogs Do If SESTA Passes?
All of the arm waving is about something that sites generally don't do: they don't run ads for sex workers, and don't allow links to escort / porn sites.
Mike is really waving his arms on this one - clearly he got the Wyden talking points memo!
On the post: Why Does SESTA Allow State Attorneys General To File Civil Claims?
So now, the civil case cannot be made unless a violation of 1591 is shown, which would normally lead to criminal charges. Any lawsuit which hinged on the concept of " by any person who violates section 1591" would pretty much be on hold until the criminal part is complete.
If the state AG's failed to file charges, they would have a very hard time in a lawsuit. They would be suing someone for something that violated the law, yet they are not actually enforcing the law on the criminal side.
I can see a clear path to a very quick dismissal, with prejudice and collection of legal fees.
On the post: Will Sheryl Sandberg And Facebook Help Small Websites Threatened By SESTA?
Re: Isn't kidnapping and slavery already illegal?
Many of the girls involved are runaways, underage, and so on. It's very much totally out of control.
On the post: Ron Wyden Puts A Hold On SESTA And Warns About Its Dangers
On the post: Dear Senators Portman & Blumenthal: What Should Blogs Do If SESTA Passes?
Re: Re: What Should Blogs Do If SESTA Passes?
The law isn't broadly worded. It uses two very slippery words, both of which we know generally the courts set a pretty high standard for (see Youtube case). Knowingly is simple. If you are selling ads to prostitutes, and you know it, and you publish them anyway... ding.
if you leave those ads up even knowing that prostitution is illegal, and if you offer help to write the ads to avoid legal problems (avoiding specific words that get them arrested) then you are facilitating.
If your site does neither of those things, then the law won't apply to you at all.
How hard is that?
On the post: Dear Senators Portman & Blumenthal: What Should Blogs Do If SESTA Passes?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your question is nonsense.
First off, the idea of trusted sites is basically to allow people to post links (without moderation) to sites like say EFF or Wikipedia - or say perhaps MSM sites. It's not anything more than that. It's just to help keep your moderation queue down a bit. Not many comments here come with links in them (maybe 1 in 100) so whitelisting a few would solve the problem.
Second, I am not getting your angle here. Someone with an axe to grind? First off, they would have to show the other site wasn't good (ie, was doing something illegal) and then would have to show that Techdirt facilitated that site getting traffic. So you are pretty far down the rabbit hole already.
"that idea also assumes that the only way to include a link is to list it directly"
If you don't want your link in moderation, don't use URL shorteners. Direct link and avoid problems. If you use a very short white list, pretty much everything else ends up in moderation when it has a link it in. Problem resolved.
It's especially relevant for Techdirt, which already sticks those posts in moderation - it's not like they would need to do anything other than what they already do.
"While you're at it perhaps you can point to the text laying out what sites have to do such that they are liable, in particular the exact definitions of things like 'knowingly' and 'facilitate'."
We all know those two words are legally slippery. However, we also know that in the case of Youtube. the standard for it is pretty high.
Does Techdirt have adult listings? Does Techdirt generally allow spam postings? Does Techdirt moderate their site? The answers are NO, YES, and YES - which shows a site which isn't knowingly aiding prostitution and isn't making it easy for them to get traffic (ie, facilitating).
It's pretty basic, actually. I know Mike is in a tizzy against anything that even pecks away a small corner of the overbroad section 230 protections, but seriously, the points are way, way, way, over the top and bear no relation to any application of such a law.
On the post: How The Internet Association's Support For SESTA Just Hurt Facebook And Its Users
Re: Re: Re: Re: Vague FUD.
"Also, it only takes one bad post/link to slip through to put the site in trouble."
That isn't at all true. You have to consider what the case would look like in court. "Yes Judge, we found this site all about parts for Ford Mustangs, and on the 100,000 posts and comments, we found a single spammer that linked to an escort site!". Do you honestly think that it would even get into court? It would be a very poor case to try to fight.
Most importantly, a single post would most certainly not rise to the level of facilitating anything, except perhaps spam.
Mike doesn't want to tell you that, because outrage at SESTA only stands up when you deal with such scary scenarios that just don't play out in real life.
On the post: How The Internet Association's Support For SESTA Just Hurt Facebook And Its Users
Re: Re: Vague FUD.
That's part of the FUD. Print sites have the time to do so and a limited space, so they review before publishing to get varied points of view (or to support what they like).
Online doesn't work that way only because it's a choice in how you have set your site up. I know a number of sites that have 100% moderated comments, and still get plenty of action.
SESTA would also not make you have to moderate every comment. That is very, very misleading.
"The whole nature of the internet is that it's a communications medium -- meaning open communications -- rather than a broadcast medium involving gatekeepers reviewing every bit of content and only allowing some through."
I think the problem you have, however, is that you have mixed the publishers and the communications part of things together in your mind, and you seem unable to separate them.
We all know that Techdirt has moderation. You already filter out pretty much anything that would be a problem, such as posts with too many links, posts from IPs you think are TOR nodes, and so on. I doubt that Techdirt would have to do a single thing in the face of SESTA.
That level of moderation isn't an unreasonable expectation of a site. After all, it is your site, your name on the door, and your name above every post.
"You move from a world of permissionless discussion, to only those with the stamp of approval can discuss."
Another dishonest statement. With very basic moderation to avoid linking to bad things, the average site is still wide open and there is no requirement to "approve" discussions. What do you think would be stopped, exactly? Do you think the comments on this site would be much different? I don't think so.
"Why would you support such a move?"
I don't support strawmen. Creating a monster under the bed scenario to scare the kids isn't helping your stand much at all.
On the post: Dear Senators Portman & Blumenthal: What Should Blogs Do If SESTA Passes?
Re: Re:
"The law is stupid and dangerous, and one of the main reasons for this is how vague it is, such that there is no clear 'Do X and you're safe', 'Do Y and you're not'."
I don't know, I find it pretty clear. Don't tolerate posters linking to unknown sites, pay attention to your site, and don't be afraid to moderate. Otherwise, everything seems normal.
Oh, yeah, I forgot, don't open a section that's call "happy endings massages and nude hour long dating services, adults only". That likely will keep you in the clear!
On the post: Dear Senators Portman & Blumenthal: What Should Blogs Do If SESTA Passes?
What Should Blogs Do If SESTA Passes?
Wordpress sites can basically take anything with a link in it and have it automatically go to moderation (there is a setting for that). Site owners could modify their themes such that any comment poster doesn't get a link off their name (a typical spamming technique).
Honestly, you don't have to do anything you were not doing already. Your Speciality Camera Lens Blog isn't promoting prostitution or anything like that in and of itself, and normal moderation takes care of the rest - just like you would do today.
The only sites that have anything to fear are sites who allow comments like the example on their sites.
The truth is, SESTA will likely make some of you actually consider what you allow on your sites. It may change things from "wide open, have at'ter boys" to at least lightly moderated and slightly restricted.
Techdirt already does this, which makes the arm waving about SESTA seem a little over the top. Post too many links in a post, use whatever they have flagged as "TOR", or a litany of other petty offenses and boom, your post goes to "moderation". That means it never shows up on the site until Leigh gets off his duff to press the okay button, which is usually quite a bit later.
Have you ever seen a prostitution ad on Techdirt?
NEXT!
On the post: Judge Ignores Congress, Pretends SOPA Exists, Orders Site Blocking Of Sci-Hub
I sense arm waving from the Techdirt "offices".
On the post: The Case Of Glassdoor And The Grand Jury Subpoena, And How Courts Are Messing With Online Speech In Secret
Re: Re: Balancing and the real world
Posting a bad review of your job on glassdoor or whatever isn't whistleblowing. Spend a while cruising the site, and you will find mostly malcontents who didn't fit into a company's culture ragging on about how they didn't get the right type of coffee machine in their department. It's laughable.
Nobody wants to drag them into the light. Who cares, right?
Now, the real whistle blowers generally aren't going to be posting their grand expose on a job review site. They are going to be emailing wikileaks or sending anonymous emails to CNN or whatever. If they have a story to tell, they will want to tell it. Again, nobody is dragging them into the light.
However, if someone does happen to mention something that might prove to be have probative value or might help authorities with an ongoing investigation, would it not be good for police to be able to discreetly make contact with them?
You know discreet - a gag order summons for personal information so they can try to find the person and talk to them - without dragging them into the light.
Seems they went pretty far out of their way to keep this out of the light, but Glassdoor themselves seem intent on making it public. Perhaps you should get angry with them, they seem to be the one shining the bright lights around.
On the post: The Case Of Glassdoor And The Grand Jury Subpoena, And How Courts Are Messing With Online Speech In Secret
Balancing and the real world
Branzburg may actually be reasonable to apply here, for a very simple reason that Techdirt has pushed time and again: Everyone is a reporter. When you choose to right a report / story on Glassdoor (or anywhere else for that matter) you are reporting. It's perhaps going all the way to the end of the ball field to get a favorable judgement, but it doesn't appear to be far off.
As someone else (who was censored) mention here, what about a conversation overheard in a bar? A grand jury could very easily request records for credit card transactions or even video of the bar to figure out who the person was. A bar and a website are, essentially, both privately owned businesses. The rules should apply more or less equally here.
As for the chilling of speech, let's be fair here. If you are having second thoughts about muck slinging your previous company because you might face legal problems, perhaps chilling your speech is the best option. Hoping that a wafer thin "everything online is anonymous" concept will protect you is just wrong. To be honest, the internet has warmed speech to levels that really make no sense at times, perhaps a little chilling would be a good idea.
On the post: Comcast Urges FCC To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Privacy, Net Neutrality
Re:
Not exactly correct. Wireless communications is one of those "exclusively federal" things. Individual states are not allowed to create laws in relation to wireless communication, license airwaves, or regulate to a certain extent those companies involved.
It is likely that any State law regulating wireless companies would be fought in court, and that fight would be headed by the FCC.
So Comcast is in fact complaining to exactly the right people.
While the FCC cannot stop them from passing stupid laws, they can immediately go to court, and seek an injunction against the law. In fact, it would almost be required as they must protect the federal powers in this area.
Companies like Comcast could go after the states, but they would be in a weaker position if the FCC wasn't part of the deal.
On the post: Internet Association Sells Out The Internet: Caves In And Will Now Support Revised SESTA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think it's as hard as you trying to make it seem
Now, if they put an extra board next to the phone and said "post your adult service ads here", you know it would be a different game, right?
On the post: Internet Association Sells Out The Internet: Caves In And Will Now Support Revised SESTA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think it's as hard as you trying to make it seem
Yes there is, but it's mostly physical product stuff. You can easily handle "legal adult" without any problems. But when you throw it in a pile with a bunch of pimps and sex traffickers, you pretty much kill the whole thing.
"SESTA is worse that the usual politicians banning the means of committing a crime"
A couple of things here. I think that if something is a crime anywhere EXCEPT the internet, then the politicians are pretty much spot on in trying to make the laws line up. The internet shouldn't be a special pass to ignore the law.
I also think that crime is generally made up of motive and opportunity. Various players in the sex trade have different motives, but the opportunity happens only when the motivated customer meets the motivated seller. It's the narrow part of the road. It's pretty logical to work on keeping the motivated parties apart and unable to complete a transaction. It is also not stupid to raise the legal risk in making such a transaction happen so people on the fence perhaps don't get enough motivation to pay for sex. Adding risk, making it more dangerous, and making it harder to find are all good steps towards eliminating the casual customers from that trade.
On the post: Internet Association Sells Out The Internet: Caves In And Will Now Support Revised SESTA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think it's as hard as you trying to make it seem
Makes no sense. Your most popular category, the only one you charge for, and you purposely avoid knowing what's in it? Sorry, you are arguing something that isn't logical.
"As for 'that wouldn't work', that's just tough, because it's one of the possible responses to avoid liability. 'We don't know what's on the site so the idea that we 'knowingly' allowed/facilitated anything is absurd.'"
It's not really possible. Nobody can be 100% ignorant of their site. They certainly cannot be ignorant of a special section with the type of ads they remove from every other part of their site. It would assume they never see page stats, never have to review a single post, etc. Not really possible.
" Do you think there is any such thing as a legal adult ad, such that sites should be allowed to host them? "
I think you are a little wrapped up in strange view. There are very few things that you can advertise that you don't want to show to minors. Most of them are phsyical products (sex toys, vaping equipment, etc) that can easily be put in their own categories and restriced. Adult Services is pretty much limited to escorts and full body massage places. Once you understand the difference, it's easy to see why few if any of the truly adult ads would ever be for legal services.
"While you're at it perhaps you can point to the part of the proposed bill that defines what 'knowingly facilitating' means. Is knowing that a service has been used in the past for illegal activity and not having stopped it from every happening again enough, or do they need to know about a specific violation and let it pass the bar that needs to be met? Again, small bill, so should only take you a few minutes"
That would be a court's decision. I think however that (a) knowing that prostitution is illegal in your area, and (b) the ads in question are offering "escort services" and (c) you created a category specifically for them, curate them, and perhaps even charge for their listings would likely be enough.
On the other hand, a random posting in the comments on Techdirt wouldn't rise to the level required. Techdirt would remove it quickly enough, Techdirt doesn't have an "escort listings by city" on their site, and so on.
"What you can do however is send a message to your state's AG, who can file a suit against backpage for doing that. "
The state AGs can and have done that already. The law changes nothing, anyone can file a lawsuit, and it can be thrown out if it's not valid. I think this law actually raises the bar, because in specifying victims, they will likely need to show a crime. Raising the bar is good, no?
"The 'piper' in this case hasn't used the tools they already had, and are now demanding that someone else do the impossible while they take all the credit."
The piper has used the tools. Section 230 blocks almost all of them. It holds the sites have no responsibility, and equally exempts the sites from knowing their customers and providing that information in response to lawsuits or legal action. Except for the incredibly tedious whack a mole of contacting a single listing, arranging a meeting, hoping like hell the girl actually says the wrong words, and then moving the case to court isn't going to fix the problems that are out there.
Removing some of the money from the sex abuse eco system will almost certainly make a difference.
Next >>