Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think it's as hard as you trying to make it seem
"The zero filtering, no moderation and therefore no 'knowledge' alternative?"
Unlikely to work, as a site operator generally knows what is and what is not popular, most popular sections, etc. Willful and intentional blindness to what is on your site likely won't work out either.
But I think you are still caught in a loop here. Knowledge and moderation does not lead to convictions. Knowledge without moderation would be an issue, moderation itself isn't a problem.
As much as Mike would like to tell you otherwise, the reality is the courts will take a law like this, and look at your "good intentions". They would look at things like keyword filtering, offering community flagging so posts can be reviewed, specifically NOT setting up sections for sex workers, and things like that. When you take pro-active steps to make your site generally free of the problem material, and when you work quickly to remove any that does appear, it would seem that you would no longer reach the level of "providing support", rather you would appear to be stopping it as quickly as possible.
It's the difference between a pyromaniac and a fireman. Both play with fire, only one puts them out.
As for your YT/Twitter argument, just remember that they have pretty much exclusively dealt with civil suits. I can file suit on you tomorrow for being annoying or making my cat sick or something. The suit may have no merit, but I can file it. Lawsuits and criminal law are not the same at all.
That this proposed law specifically limits civil actions to victims would appear to fit the definition of keeping things narrow and on point. It means that I cannot file suit against Backpage because they took a sex worker ad from a pimp. I am not a victim, therefore I would have no standing. I could try, but I would fail to have standing.
" you'll have to excuse me if I don't buy her statements as anything more than grandstanding so she can claim she's 'doing something',"
Yet, if it was Wyden, it would be earth shaking news. The point is the even Washington is starting to catch on the SV has had a free ride, and that ride is coming to an end.
"It's them whining about how 'bad' people use open platforms so clearly those platforms have an obligation to 'do something' about those 'bad' people,"
The thing is, that is the nature of the law. Let's for a moment disable section 230 and see what would happen. Would backpage be running the ads they do? I don't think so. That is the point here. Washington has figured out that things aren't right, and that with all of this power, SV types aren't taking the responsibility that comes with the power. Just like a child (sadly) if they can't hand;e the power. then the government (mom and dad) will have to step in to assure that nobody gets hurt while they play with their powerful toys.
They have had 20 years to achieve a balance, instead they created jerk tech and "arrogance as a service". The piper has shown up and expects to get paid.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Section 230 "legalizes" what's illegal if on paper.
You understand why they can do that, right?
In Vegas, they don't have escorts. They literally have refined it down to a very, very impressive science of sliding besides the law by marketing it as "girls to your room". They are a strict introduction service and they collect a flat fee for the introduction - PERIOD. The girl is basically, at your room for X minutes as part of that fee, and that's it!
If the girl chooses to offer other services, it's on her.
Their advertising? It's very simple and very clear - just a picture and a phone number. The picture is never totally nude, there is never the promise of or even the suggestion of sex. Call them, and you get a complete stonewall on the situation, entirely on purpose. The operators that handle the calls (and yes, they are pro "closers") will not ever go there, no matter how hard you twist them into it. They won't talk bust size or skills or anything like that. It's pure "girl to your door to meet", end of concept. It is very narrowly controlled to assure that it does not cross any legal boundary. They are very, very smart.
For what it's worth, and 75% of that business is controlled by one guy, who has tons of operators and tons of phone numbers all going to one central office that does it all. They are very, very slick.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think it's as hard as you trying to make it seem
"using your own argument that 'knowledge and moderation = liability',"
Not my argument at all.
My argument is that by creating a special category for the "dirty stuff" (sex ads) they have shown knowledge. Moderation doesn't enter into the discussion at that point. They have up front knowledge, otherwise they wouldn't create a category to hide the stuff away from their general users.
Moderation in and by itself shouldn't be an issue. When a site moderates offensive or illegal material and removed it from their site, they are clearly showing that they are not aiding criminal activity but trying to shut it down. That means they don't violate the first part of the law in doing so.
Oh, and as much as Mike would hate this, the recent hearings into the whole Russian thing has left the tech industry major players in a pretty bad spot:
"Feinstein made it clear that, going forward, Big Tech should expect to operate under a microscope. “We are not going to go away, gentlemen,” she said. “And this is a very big deal. I went home last night with profound disappointment. I asked specific questions, I got vague answers. And that just won’t do. You have a huge problem on your hands. And the U.S. is going to be the first of the countries to bring it to your attention, and other countries are going to follow, I’m sure, because you bear this responsibility. You created these platforms, and they are being misused. And you have to be the ones to do something about it—or we will.”"
If even Vanity Fair is running this stuff, you can be pretty sure it's getting wide coverage. SESTA is just another little part of the government getting tired of the irresponsible attitudes from Silicon Valley types. Get use to it, it's going to get worse, not better.
Re: Re: I don't think it's as hard as you trying to make it seem
"Because of course there is simply no legal 'adult service' that someone could offer, such that the only possible reason they could have that category is to cater to illegal activity."
"Someone just needs to claim that your site "facilitates" sex trafficking, and now you have "knowledge." Thus, the strong incentive will be to remove, remove, remove. As we already see, the DMCA notice and takedown provisions are widely abused. Anyone who thinks this won't be widely abused has not been paying attention.'"
You have swallowed Mike's opinion whole. Spit it out before you get a tummy ache!
Seriously, claiming your site facilitiates isn't knowledge. I can claim you facilitate sex with small animals. That isn't proof o anything or knowledge.
By that standard, all a single person would have to do is post a message (or send an email) to every site on the internet and boom, and they would all have knowledge. Not very logical, is it?
Can you suggest some "adult services" that are legal, but you wouldn't want in your normal listings? Anything from trips to casinos to matchmaking could all be in the normal listings, and are on a regular basis. Backpage's adult ads are very specific in nature.
These are ads and services they would not want to have in their main categories. Hmm, why? They are generally of a sexual nature. OH! So you know they are about sex, right? Hmm. Girl offering to meet at a hotel by the house. Hmm. Sounds like, what, prostitution?
By creating the category, and filtering what goes in it, they are showing knowledge. Not some random person saying "hey, I found a sex ad on your site somewhere" but actual working knowledge of why they have the category and what is in it.
Backpage has knowledge because they remove those ads from the rest of their site but specifically permit them here. If they didn't allow them at all, they would be fine. But knowing what they are and shuffling to a different category rather than removing them would be enough to meet the SESTA bar for knowledge.
"You could of course argue that the DMCA isn't abused on a regular basis"
All laws can be abused. However, DMCA and SESTA are not comparable. DMCA is a "party v party" type situation, where SESTA is "government v party". So random people (like yourself) can't overwhelm the system with fake reports that are in any way binding. You would be not better or no worse than someone filing a false police report.
I don't think it's as hard as you trying to make it seem
"knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating a violation..."
Backpage having an "adult services" section would likely be knowingly assisting.
Techdirt spotting and deleting a comment that pointed to an escort site? Not at all.
I understand the scare techniques here, but it doesn't add up. A lack of knowledge and a lack of intent seem to be more than enough to be innocent here.
..and once again, a valid comment with proper points raised is censored by those who would rather put their hands over their ears and yell "lalalala" rather than think.
Mike, I have to say it's not often that you pull out the big guns anymore and try to rip an article top to bottom to try to discredit it. You have gone all out here, but I think you are in the unhappy place of having to basically support sexual abuse in order to protect your beloved section 230.
This is exactly that sort of situation I have mentioned in the past. Section 230 is incredibly broad in nature (too broad, really) and something like this was bound to happen.
Where do I start?
"Federal law is clear that law enforcement can go after sex traffickers. There is nothing in SESTA about going after sex traffickers. SESTA is entirely about going after internet platforms because someone may have used them in the process of "facilitating" sex trafficking."
Perhaps this is one of your most self-serving responses ever. Yes, Federal law allows law enforcement to go after sex traffickers. But the point you are carefully stepping around is that Backpage and others have been allowed to stand behind section 230, accept anonymous ads, and be completely free of any responsibility for doing so, even when the have clear knowledge of the intent of the ads. They can (and have) continue to run the ads when it's clear what they are for.
As someone else pointed, print magazines all got away from this sort of thing because they know it's illegal. Section 230 and section 230 ALONE created an exception that lets online media get away with what everyone else would not do. That quite simply is not acceptable.
"Their hands are tied in prosecuting Backpage without evidence of Backpage itself breaking the law."
Misleading.
You have to (again) frame this in real world terms. A print magazine with the same content would be prosecuted, anything from aiding and abetting to pandering, for printing the same material. We aren't talking those sly "meet for a discreet encounter" types of dating site come ons, this is a series of near nude images, measurements, touting their "skills", and so on. In the real physical world in print, the magazine would be in serious trouble. There is no reason, save section 230, that Backpage is emboldened to do what they have been doing.
The effects of section 230 are broader than even your Sainted Wyden would have expected. What it ends up doing is creating such a huge protection for Backpage, that even with a criminal prosecution of one of the ad's girls in hand, they likely could do nothing more than ask Backpage nicely to take her expired ads down.
" absolutely nothing in SESTA actually protects those victims."
You are wrong.
The sex trade is driven by money, and money alone. Pimps don't entrap girls into being sex workers for fun, they do it to make money. If the girl ain't making money, she's useless. The aggressive use of online services to promote prostitution is based on a pure economic model - cost versus return. It drives money into their ecosystem, and in turn into pimp's pockets.
When you work to take the money out of the game and make the product less available, you do end up protecting the victims (and future victims) by making the crime less desirable, which leads to fewer victims.
This would be doubly true in cases where the entire operation depends on Backpage style ads to drive business. Modern online pimps are not up for fighting for street corners or actually having to do real world battle to operate. Online creates millions of new virtual street corners with nobody beating you up over them.
You also have to consider the convenience factor, as well as the safety factor. Backpage running the ads creates a certain amount of credibility for those ads. Consumers trust the Backpage brand, and as such, consumers who might not engage in the activity (ie, wouldn't go looking for a street corner ho) will follow up on ads in Backpage. They create a bigger marketplace than might otherwise exist, make casual punters feel safer, and allow casual pimps and sex workers to make income without the risks inherent to an illegal activity.
Sorry to say Mike, but even with all your usual good logic, you are on the wrong side of this one. I know it's going to blow a hole in section 230, but I have said it for years - the over broad nature of section 230 creates the makings of it's own demise.
My suggestion? Work with your buddy Wyden to change section 230 before it gets totally shot down. Narrow it's scope. get rid of some of the more obvious "blinds" that it creates for criminal actions, and update the law such that the core principals still exist, without criminals being able to so easily take advantage (and for companies like Backpage to build shady business models on section 230 alone). Then you might have something.
"The law is supposed to constrain those tasked with upholding it."
Constrain, yes, but not create make work and run the justice system into the ground. This really needed a single good global warrant and not a warrant for each and every doe.
Think about it. In order to make this work, they would have to apply for a warrant in each and every jurisdiction in the US, and potentially ask for an international warrant, just to start the ball rolling.
Can you imagine having to ask for the same doe warrant in each of those jurisdictions, just so some comment writer on a website isn't butt hurt about it?
"If you can't figure out how justice is served by those enforcing the law being required to follow the law and being slapped down when they don't then I really don't know what to tell you, as that one seems so obvious as to almost be a rhetorical question."
If you can't figure out that justice is best served by having the justice system deal with criminals, not make work paperwork. This issue only exists because of something that has already been corrected by clarifying the law. The intent wasn't to get around the law, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered with a warrant at all and would have just doxed the people they caught on reddit.
Re: How far will they go with these fantasy crime convictions?
"These convictions based on the idea that there was no actual crime, but the defendant thought that there was are almost too surreal."
There still is a crime. They are still intending to rip off a stash house, they still go through the process, and they effectively commit the crime.
There is still criminal activity.
Honestly, I don't have a lot of sympathy for those arrested. That the FBI got them in a sting rather than their next bar buddy who gets them to do a home invasion in a rich part of town is probably a good thing. These people who commit the crime - and they did - so getting them off the streets isn't a bad thing.
Not surprised by the choice, but not for the reasons you would like to push.
What I think is interesting is that more than half of Karl's posts are about cord cutting and how people are moving away from mainstream media sources. That includes things like Spotify instead of over the air radio stations.
So it's not really a surprise to find out what media companies are working to consolidate. They know that the single path towards profitable operations and survival is to have one set of services for as many stations / channels / operations as possible. Cutting the number of people and amount of office space per station is a way to make the bottom line work out.
There are also big benefits in things like formats, common advertising, and the like.
Iheatradio was the original in this field, and it's only really having problems because of extreme leveraging during the buyouts and consolidations. They have way too much debt and no simple way to pay it off. Otherwise, they are actually doing well and their popular app is letting them bridge the gap to the digital world.
Consolidation is a normal state of affairs, blocked only by rules put in places decades ago, long before the internet was a thing. Everyone around here says the internet changes everything, so why shouldn't it?
Honestly, the situation is one that is not really readily handled by the law as it was written at the time. The internet is a pesky thing that doesn't stop at most borders, and certainly not state ones. It was without a doubt a foregone conclusion that the actions permitted in the warrant would go past the border.
The judge issuing the warrant essentially punted. He (or she) probably knew this would expand in scope, but figured the appeals courts could deal with it. He was correct, and more so, it appears the lawmakers have also taken a swing.
Don't be surprised if you run into a whole bunch of this as the legal system wrestles with the online world and discovers that neat little boundaries drawn on a map don't mean much for data or illegal activity.
" Go ask anyone on the street if they would like the internet broken up like cable packages."
Bit of a strawman argument, don't you think? It's not something that had come up in the US, and only seems to exist as an option in one place (portugal) on an ISP that doesn't block stuff, just gives you MORE bandwidth for certain things if you pay.
Asking a question that creates fear will always get the response you want. That the you are creating fear by asking a poor, one sided question is of course, not good.
I don't brush it aside. It's a very serious matter, not really because of the target as much as that someone clearly has a pretty huge (but somewhat out of date) database of people's personal information.
I think it was very poorly done. If someone was trying to create the view of some sort of public uprising to support getting rid of Wheeler's arbitrary rules, then they could have done a whole lot better. In fact, it's so poorly done, that it looks more like a troll than an actual attempt to accomplish supporting the rollback.
That's why I sort of conclude that it's more of a trolling attempt. I think more so because the only people who latched onto it as "news" generally have been the NN supporter side. Nobody else seems to give a flying crap about it.
It was way too obvious, especially considering everyone knew up front it would be one of those million to one comment things, where all the comments come from the people actively concerned only. Spiking in thousands and thousands of similar / duplicate comments on the side that likely won't get many comments is just so freaking obvious. It's 4Chan stuff.
I think much of this traces back to a simple problem: There is no real "anti net neutrality" crusade. Outside of people who support NN, there really isn't much else in the population one way or another. Quite simply, it's not a hot button issue beyond the raving hardcore.
We do know that the vast majority of comments received by the FCC are in support of NN. We also know that the total count of comments doesn't reach 1% of the population.
Considering how sloppy a job someone did one trying to spike the results, I would guess it's actually a NN supporter trying to create an easily defeatable strawman. I say this only because the comments were spotted so quickly, and denounced widely but only on the usual NN support sites and such.
The actual shut down of the comment system following the TV exposure on the subject has gotten way more coverage from the more mainstream sites. Perhaps they are better as spotting the obvious scam and avoiding it.
"And the larger point is that Network Neutrality is not meant to create ISP competition."
To the contrary, the supposed need for net neutrality laws is because there is a lack of competition in many markets. With a lack of competition, consumers would have no choice but to eat whatever move the ISPs made.
However, the truth is most Americans have choices when it comes to internet service. Most have at least a DSL or cable option. Americans living in rural areas and "2 acres of land" subdivisions have fewer choices, because they have chosen to live far from services. They also have to go further to get to a corner store.
Also, I think that net neutrality wouldn't come into play with this sort of setup anyway. There is no specific rule that says you cannot sell the internet in other ways than "all of it". Selling restricted connections with the customers full knowledge for a lesser price that "full service" would appear to be acceptable. There is no "fast lane", only limits choices as selected by the consumer.
"If you believe Comcast should be able to tell you that you can access Crunchyroll at the same speeds as Netflix so long as you pay for the tier of Internet service that includes “normal” speeds for Crunchyroll"
I don't believe that at all. I do believe, however, that it's not a fair fight anyway, for very simple reasons. Companies like Netflix, Google, and Facebook have been building their own private networks and making more peering available to ISPs. They are bypassing all the common carriers to bring their service as close to consumers as possible. Crunchyroll ain't in that position. So like it or not, your access time (and speed) to Netflix will likely be better than Crunchyroll. it's not your ISPs fault specifically, rather it's a technical failure that Net Neutrality totally ignored.
Agree or disagree is pretty irrelevant here. Painting a guy with an extremist point of view as being part of a "front group" is pretty much off the farm, even for Mike.
Smacks of desperation, sort of like letting Karl run the fake AT&T "pay extra for sites" graphics. That's sad stuff right there.
The point is that NN in the US doesn't do anything to create competition or up the amount of stuff offered to the public. It just changes (in some ways) the potential ways to price it.
Companies having the stranglehold on the last mile is the real problem, but one the FCC isn't dealing with - not now, and not with Wheeler.
NN is just bad, it's harmful as it cements in a bad situation as normal.
On the post: Senator Portman Pushes Forward With SESTA, Despite Being Misinformed
Re: Re: Section 230 versus the Obvious Wrong
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
Unlikely to work, as a site operator generally knows what is and what is not popular, most popular sections, etc. Willful and intentional blindness to what is on your site likely won't work out either.
But I think you are still caught in a loop here. Knowledge and moderation does not lead to convictions. Knowledge without moderation would be an issue, moderation itself isn't a problem.
As much as Mike would like to tell you otherwise, the reality is the courts will take a law like this, and look at your "good intentions". They would look at things like keyword filtering, offering community flagging so posts can be reviewed, specifically NOT setting up sections for sex workers, and things like that. When you take pro-active steps to make your site generally free of the problem material, and when you work quickly to remove any that does appear, it would seem that you would no longer reach the level of "providing support", rather you would appear to be stopping it as quickly as possible.
It's the difference between a pyromaniac and a fireman. Both play with fire, only one puts them out.
As for your YT/Twitter argument, just remember that they have pretty much exclusively dealt with civil suits. I can file suit on you tomorrow for being annoying or making my cat sick or something. The suit may have no merit, but I can file it. Lawsuits and criminal law are not the same at all.
That this proposed law specifically limits civil actions to victims would appear to fit the definition of keeping things narrow and on point. It means that I cannot file suit against Backpage because they took a sex worker ad from a pimp. I am not a victim, therefore I would have no standing. I could try, but I would fail to have standing.
" you'll have to excuse me if I don't buy her statements as anything more than grandstanding so she can claim she's 'doing something',"
Yet, if it was Wyden, it would be earth shaking news. The point is the even Washington is starting to catch on the SV has had a free ride, and that ride is coming to an end.
"It's them whining about how 'bad' people use open platforms so clearly those platforms have an obligation to 'do something' about those 'bad' people,"
The thing is, that is the nature of the law. Let's for a moment disable section 230 and see what would happen. Would backpage be running the ads they do? I don't think so. That is the point here. Washington has figured out that things aren't right, and that with all of this power, SV types aren't taking the responsibility that comes with the power. Just like a child (sadly) if they can't hand;e the power. then the government (mom and dad) will have to step in to assure that nobody gets hurt while they play with their powerful toys.
They have had 20 years to achieve a balance, instead they created jerk tech and "arrogance as a service". The piper has shown up and expects to get paid.
On the post: Senator Portman Pushes Forward With SESTA, Despite Being Misinformed
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Section 230 "legalizes" what's illegal if on paper.
In Vegas, they don't have escorts. They literally have refined it down to a very, very impressive science of sliding besides the law by marketing it as "girls to your room". They are a strict introduction service and they collect a flat fee for the introduction - PERIOD. The girl is basically, at your room for X minutes as part of that fee, and that's it!
If the girl chooses to offer other services, it's on her.
Their advertising? It's very simple and very clear - just a picture and a phone number. The picture is never totally nude, there is never the promise of or even the suggestion of sex. Call them, and you get a complete stonewall on the situation, entirely on purpose. The operators that handle the calls (and yes, they are pro "closers") will not ever go there, no matter how hard you twist them into it. They won't talk bust size or skills or anything like that. It's pure "girl to your door to meet", end of concept. It is very narrowly controlled to assure that it does not cross any legal boundary. They are very, very smart.
For what it's worth, and 75% of that business is controlled by one guy, who has tons of operators and tons of phone numbers all going to one central office that does it all. They are very, very slick.
On the post: Internet Association Sells Out The Internet: Caves In And Will Now Support Revised SESTA
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think it's as hard as you trying to make it seem
Not my argument at all.
My argument is that by creating a special category for the "dirty stuff" (sex ads) they have shown knowledge. Moderation doesn't enter into the discussion at that point. They have up front knowledge, otherwise they wouldn't create a category to hide the stuff away from their general users.
Moderation in and by itself shouldn't be an issue. When a site moderates offensive or illegal material and removed it from their site, they are clearly showing that they are not aiding criminal activity but trying to shut it down. That means they don't violate the first part of the law in doing so.
Oh, and as much as Mike would hate this, the recent hearings into the whole Russian thing has left the tech industry major players in a pretty bad spot:
"Feinstein made it clear that, going forward, Big Tech should expect to operate under a microscope. “We are not going to go away, gentlemen,” she said. “And this is a very big deal. I went home last night with profound disappointment. I asked specific questions, I got vague answers. And that just won’t do. You have a huge problem on your hands. And the U.S. is going to be the first of the countries to bring it to your attention, and other countries are going to follow, I’m sure, because you bear this responsibility. You created these platforms, and they are being misused. And you have to be the ones to do something about it—or we will.”"
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/feinstein-lights-into-big-tech-over-russian-meddlin g
If even Vanity Fair is running this stuff, you can be pretty sure it's getting wide coverage. SESTA is just another little part of the government getting tired of the irresponsible attitudes from Silicon Valley types. Get use to it, it's going to get worse, not better.
On the post: Internet Association Sells Out The Internet: Caves In And Will Now Support Revised SESTA
Re: Re: I don't think it's as hard as you trying to make it seem
"Someone just needs to claim that your site "facilitates" sex trafficking, and now you have "knowledge." Thus, the strong incentive will be to remove, remove, remove. As we already see, the DMCA notice and takedown provisions are widely abused. Anyone who thinks this won't be widely abused has not been paying attention.'"
You have swallowed Mike's opinion whole. Spit it out before you get a tummy ache!
Seriously, claiming your site facilitiates isn't knowledge. I can claim you facilitate sex with small animals. That isn't proof o anything or knowledge.
By that standard, all a single person would have to do is post a message (or send an email) to every site on the internet and boom, and they would all have knowledge. Not very logical, is it?
Can you suggest some "adult services" that are legal, but you wouldn't want in your normal listings? Anything from trips to casinos to matchmaking could all be in the normal listings, and are on a regular basis. Backpage's adult ads are very specific in nature.
These are ads and services they would not want to have in their main categories. Hmm, why? They are generally of a sexual nature. OH! So you know they are about sex, right? Hmm. Girl offering to meet at a hotel by the house. Hmm. Sounds like, what, prostitution?
By creating the category, and filtering what goes in it, they are showing knowledge. Not some random person saying "hey, I found a sex ad on your site somewhere" but actual working knowledge of why they have the category and what is in it.
Backpage has knowledge because they remove those ads from the rest of their site but specifically permit them here. If they didn't allow them at all, they would be fine. But knowing what they are and shuffling to a different category rather than removing them would be enough to meet the SESTA bar for knowledge.
"You could of course argue that the DMCA isn't abused on a regular basis"
All laws can be abused. However, DMCA and SESTA are not comparable. DMCA is a "party v party" type situation, where SESTA is "government v party". So random people (like yourself) can't overwhelm the system with fake reports that are in any way binding. You would be not better or no worse than someone filing a false police report.
On the post: Internet Association Sells Out The Internet: Caves In And Will Now Support Revised SESTA
I don't think it's as hard as you trying to make it seem
Backpage having an "adult services" section would likely be knowingly assisting.
Techdirt spotting and deleting a comment that pointed to an escort site? Not at all.
I understand the scare techniques here, but it doesn't add up. A lack of knowledge and a lack of intent seem to be more than enough to be innocent here.
On the post: Senator Portman Pushes Forward With SESTA, Despite Being Misinformed
Re: Section 230 versus the Obvious Wrong
Congrats, you guys are special.
On the post: Senator Portman Pushes Forward With SESTA, Despite Being Misinformed
Section 230 versus the Obvious Wrong
This is exactly that sort of situation I have mentioned in the past. Section 230 is incredibly broad in nature (too broad, really) and something like this was bound to happen.
Where do I start?
"Federal law is clear that law enforcement can go after sex traffickers. There is nothing in SESTA about going after sex traffickers. SESTA is entirely about going after internet platforms because someone may have used them in the process of "facilitating" sex trafficking."
Perhaps this is one of your most self-serving responses ever. Yes, Federal law allows law enforcement to go after sex traffickers. But the point you are carefully stepping around is that Backpage and others have been allowed to stand behind section 230, accept anonymous ads, and be completely free of any responsibility for doing so, even when the have clear knowledge of the intent of the ads. They can (and have) continue to run the ads when it's clear what they are for.
As someone else pointed, print magazines all got away from this sort of thing because they know it's illegal. Section 230 and section 230 ALONE created an exception that lets online media get away with what everyone else would not do. That quite simply is not acceptable.
"Their hands are tied in prosecuting Backpage without evidence of Backpage itself breaking the law."
Misleading.
You have to (again) frame this in real world terms. A print magazine with the same content would be prosecuted, anything from aiding and abetting to pandering, for printing the same material. We aren't talking those sly "meet for a discreet encounter" types of dating site come ons, this is a series of near nude images, measurements, touting their "skills", and so on. In the real physical world in print, the magazine would be in serious trouble. There is no reason, save section 230, that Backpage is emboldened to do what they have been doing.
The effects of section 230 are broader than even your Sainted Wyden would have expected. What it ends up doing is creating such a huge protection for Backpage, that even with a criminal prosecution of one of the ad's girls in hand, they likely could do nothing more than ask Backpage nicely to take her expired ads down.
" absolutely nothing in SESTA actually protects those victims."
You are wrong.
The sex trade is driven by money, and money alone. Pimps don't entrap girls into being sex workers for fun, they do it to make money. If the girl ain't making money, she's useless. The aggressive use of online services to promote prostitution is based on a pure economic model - cost versus return. It drives money into their ecosystem, and in turn into pimp's pockets.
When you work to take the money out of the game and make the product less available, you do end up protecting the victims (and future victims) by making the crime less desirable, which leads to fewer victims.
This would be doubly true in cases where the entire operation depends on Backpage style ads to drive business. Modern online pimps are not up for fighting for street corners or actually having to do real world battle to operate. Online creates millions of new virtual street corners with nobody beating you up over them.
You also have to consider the convenience factor, as well as the safety factor. Backpage running the ads creates a certain amount of credibility for those ads. Consumers trust the Backpage brand, and as such, consumers who might not engage in the activity (ie, wouldn't go looking for a street corner ho) will follow up on ads in Backpage. They create a bigger marketplace than might otherwise exist, make casual punters feel safer, and allow casual pimps and sex workers to make income without the risks inherent to an illegal activity.
Sorry to say Mike, but even with all your usual good logic, you are on the wrong side of this one. I know it's going to blow a hole in section 230, but I have said it for years - the over broad nature of section 230 creates the makings of it's own demise.
My suggestion? Work with your buddy Wyden to change section 230 before it gets totally shot down. Narrow it's scope. get rid of some of the more obvious "blinds" that it creates for criminal actions, and update the law such that the core principals still exist, without criminals being able to so easily take advantage (and for companies like Backpage to build shady business models on section 230 alone). Then you might have something.
On the post: Equustek No-Shows Legal Challenge Of Canadian Court Order Demanding Google Delist Sites Worldwide
On the post: First Circuit Appeals Court Latest To Overturn Playpen Suppression Order
Re: Re: Can you read your own quotes?
"The law is supposed to constrain those tasked with upholding it."
Constrain, yes, but not create make work and run the justice system into the ground. This really needed a single good global warrant and not a warrant for each and every doe.
Think about it. In order to make this work, they would have to apply for a warrant in each and every jurisdiction in the US, and potentially ask for an international warrant, just to start the ball rolling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_courts_of_the_United_States
Can you imagine having to ask for the same doe warrant in each of those jurisdictions, just so some comment writer on a website isn't butt hurt about it?
"If you can't figure out how justice is served by those enforcing the law being required to follow the law and being slapped down when they don't then I really don't know what to tell you, as that one seems so obvious as to almost be a rhetorical question."
If you can't figure out that justice is best served by having the justice system deal with criminals, not make work paperwork. This issue only exists because of something that has already been corrected by clarifying the law. The intent wasn't to get around the law, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered with a warrant at all and would have just doxed the people they caught on reddit.
On the post: Another Stash House Sting Criticized By The Court... But Lengthy Sentences Left Untouched
Re: How far will they go with these fantasy crime convictions?
There still is a crime. They are still intending to rip off a stash house, they still go through the process, and they effectively commit the crime.
There is still criminal activity.
Honestly, I don't have a lot of sympathy for those arrested. That the FBI got them in a sting rather than their next bar buddy who gets them to do a home invasion in a rich part of town is probably a good thing. These people who commit the crime - and they did - so getting them off the streets isn't a bad thing.
On the post: FCC Boss Demolishes Media Ownership Rules In Massive Gift To Sinclair Broadcasting
No Surprises here
What I think is interesting is that more than half of Karl's posts are about cord cutting and how people are moving away from mainstream media sources. That includes things like Spotify instead of over the air radio stations.
So it's not really a surprise to find out what media companies are working to consolidate. They know that the single path towards profitable operations and survival is to have one set of services for as many stations / channels / operations as possible. Cutting the number of people and amount of office space per station is a way to make the bottom line work out.
There are also big benefits in things like formats, common advertising, and the like.
Iheatradio was the original in this field, and it's only really having problems because of extreme leveraging during the buyouts and consolidations. They have way too much debt and no simple way to pay it off. Otherwise, they are actually doing well and their popular app is letting them bridge the gap to the digital world.
Consolidation is a normal state of affairs, blocked only by rules put in places decades ago, long before the internet was a thing. Everyone around here says the internet changes everything, so why shouldn't it?
On the post: First Circuit Appeals Court Latest To Overturn Playpen Suppression Order
Re: Re: Not Really Regulated
Ironic?
On the post: First Circuit Appeals Court Latest To Overturn Playpen Suppression Order
Not Really Regulated
The judge issuing the warrant essentially punted. He (or she) probably knew this would expand in scope, but figured the appeals courts could deal with it. He was correct, and more so, it appears the lawmakers have also taken a swing.
Don't be surprised if you run into a whole bunch of this as the legal system wrestles with the online world and discovers that neat little boundaries drawn on a map don't mean much for data or illegal activity.
On the post: Dead People Mysteriously Support The FCC's Attack On Net Neutrality
Re: Re:
Bit of a strawman argument, don't you think? It's not something that had come up in the US, and only seems to exist as an option in one place (portugal) on an ISP that doesn't block stuff, just gives you MORE bandwidth for certain things if you pay.
Asking a question that creates fear will always get the response you want. That the you are creating fear by asking a poor, one sided question is of course, not good.
On the post: Dead People Mysteriously Support The FCC's Attack On Net Neutrality
Re: Re:
I think it was very poorly done. If someone was trying to create the view of some sort of public uprising to support getting rid of Wheeler's arbitrary rules, then they could have done a whole lot better. In fact, it's so poorly done, that it looks more like a troll than an actual attempt to accomplish supporting the rollback.
That's why I sort of conclude that it's more of a trolling attempt. I think more so because the only people who latched onto it as "news" generally have been the NN supporter side. Nobody else seems to give a flying crap about it.
It was way too obvious, especially considering everyone knew up front it would be one of those million to one comment things, where all the comments come from the people actively concerned only. Spiking in thousands and thousands of similar / duplicate comments on the side that likely won't get many comments is just so freaking obvious. It's 4Chan stuff.
On the post: Dead People Mysteriously Support The FCC's Attack On Net Neutrality
We do know that the vast majority of comments received by the FCC are in support of NN. We also know that the total count of comments doesn't reach 1% of the population.
Considering how sloppy a job someone did one trying to spike the results, I would guess it's actually a NN supporter trying to create an easily defeatable strawman. I say this only because the comments were spotted so quickly, and denounced widely but only on the usual NN support sites and such.
The actual shut down of the comment system following the TV exposure on the subject has gotten way more coverage from the more mainstream sites. Perhaps they are better as spotting the obvious scam and avoiding it.
On the post: Portugal Shows The Internet Why Net Neutrality Is Important
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To the contrary, the supposed need for net neutrality laws is because there is a lack of competition in many markets. With a lack of competition, consumers would have no choice but to eat whatever move the ISPs made.
However, the truth is most Americans have choices when it comes to internet service. Most have at least a DSL or cable option. Americans living in rural areas and "2 acres of land" subdivisions have fewer choices, because they have chosen to live far from services. They also have to go further to get to a corner store.
Also, I think that net neutrality wouldn't come into play with this sort of setup anyway. There is no specific rule that says you cannot sell the internet in other ways than "all of it". Selling restricted connections with the customers full knowledge for a lesser price that "full service" would appear to be acceptable. There is no "fast lane", only limits choices as selected by the consumer.
"If you believe Comcast should be able to tell you that you can access Crunchyroll at the same speeds as Netflix so long as you pay for the tier of Internet service that includes “normal” speeds for Crunchyroll"
I don't believe that at all. I do believe, however, that it's not a fair fight anyway, for very simple reasons. Companies like Netflix, Google, and Facebook have been building their own private networks and making more peering available to ISPs. They are bypassing all the common carriers to bring their service as close to consumers as possible. Crunchyroll ain't in that position. So like it or not, your access time (and speed) to Netflix will likely be better than Crunchyroll. it's not your ISPs fault specifically, rather it's a technical failure that Net Neutrality totally ignored.
On the post: Finally, RIAA Front Group Admits That Forcing YouTube To Police Site Doesn't Work Well
Re: Re:
Smacks of desperation, sort of like letting Karl run the fake AT&T "pay extra for sites" graphics. That's sad stuff right there.
On the post: Portugal Shows The Internet Why Net Neutrality Is Important
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Companies having the stranglehold on the last mile is the real problem, but one the FCC isn't dealing with - not now, and not with Wheeler.
NN is just bad, it's harmful as it cements in a bad situation as normal.
Next >>