harmful-communications-201910/fosta-sestaRant.org

#+latex_class: article
#+latex_class_options:
#+latex_header:
#+latex_header_extra:
#+description:
#+keywords:
#+subtitle:
#+latex_compiler: pdflatex
#+date: \today

#+TITLE: /FOSTA/SESTA/ Rant
#+AUTHOR: Éibhear Ó hAnluain
#+EMAIL: eibhear.geo@gmail.com, 086 8565 666, http://www.gibiris.org/eo-blog/
#+OPTIONS: ^:{} toc:nil H:4 num:t author:t email:nil
#+TODO: CONSTODO CONSNOTES | CONSDONE CONSDONTDO

* CONSTODO The distinction between user behaviours and online services :noexport:

  The internet is awash with online harassment and harmful
  communications, and responsible governments and legislators have
  been trying for decades to do something about it.

  However, it's no less true in this sphere than in any other that
  "doing something" is not necessarily enough to address the problem:
  doing only the /right thing/ it what's required.

  In the first of his 6 Laws of
  Technology[fn:6laws:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_Kranzberg#Kranzberg's_laws_of_technology],
  Dr. Melvin Kranzberg determined that "Technology is neither good nor
  bad; nor is it neutral." The tempation on observers is to decide
  that the extent of online harassment, abuse and harmful
  communications is because of the existence of online services, and
  that if only we could force the services to implement their
  technologies in a particular manner, all the problems will be
  solved.

  For instance, the United States of America recently enacted a law
  known as the "Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act", or
  /FOSTA-SESTA/[fn:FOSTA-SESTA:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_Act]. This
  was a law to show that the U.S. Congress was doing something to stop
  sex-trafficking. The law made it an offence for online services to
  "knowingly [assist], [support], or [facilitate]" sex-trafficking,
  and it removed from online services speech-related protections that
  had been previously provided under another U.S. law known as the
  "Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act".

  Accounts show, however, that doing *this* was not effective, and has
  been counter-productive. As expected, a number of websites that had
  been used to legally advertise sex services in the United States
  either shut down that section of their service (e.g. Craigslists'
  "Erotic Services"), or shutdown completely[fn:SOSTAEffect:Lura
  Chamberlain, FOSTA: A Hostile Law with a Human Cost, 87 Fordham
  L. Rev. 2171 (2019).  Available at:
  https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol87/iss5/13]. If the goal of the
  law was to protect sex workers, and women in particular, it has had
  the opposite effect:
  - Independent sex workers now have no online means to promote their
    services, forcing them to turn to pimps for this.
  - There has been a notable increase in the number of sex workers who
    have gone missing.
  - Some sex-workers have died by suicide.
  - Assault and rape of sex workers has increased, and many fear that
    murders of sex workers are also
    increasing[fn:craigslisthomicide:http://www.econlib.org/archives/2018/01/craigslist_redu.html].
  - Sex workers have no means to learn about their potential clients
    prior to the client knowing about them: where they could vet
    people who made contact with them over these services before
    identifying themselves, this is not possible anymore, and
    dramatically increases their risk.
  - Ironically, one of the negative effects of /FOSTA-SESTA/ is that
    it is now much harder for the police to investigate rapes,
    assaults and murders of sex workers than before, because a
    critical trail of evidence -- the online communications between
    offenders and sex-workers -- now can no longer be
    laid[fn:FOSTAPolice:https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180705/01033440176/more-police-admitting-that-fosta-sesta-has-made-it-much-more-difficult-to-catch-pimps-traffickers.shtml]. This
    is not least because the websites are no longer there, but because
    when they were (e.g. Backpage), they assisted the police
    investigating these crimes against sex workers; advertising was
    legal back then, and now it's not, the police won't get the help
    from web sites when they need
    it[fn:SESTAPolice:https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180509/13450339810/police-realizing-that-sesta-fosta-made-their-jobs-harder-sex-traffickers-realizing-made-their-job-easier.shtml].


  This was predicted, but by advocates for sex workers and for free
  speech, and legislators failed to heed the warnings. In fact, when
  considering this law, legislators were presented with statistics
  that were false, and misrepresented the landscape prior to enacting
  /FOSTA-SESTA/[fn:buzzfeed:https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jennyheineman/sex-trafficking-myths-sesta-fosta].

  I highlight this law in particular because it is both recent
  (early 2018) and relevant. However it's not alone, and as we look at
  pending legislation coming to us both domestically and from the EU,
  it's hard not to see the same failures repeating:
  - Pat Rabbitte's and Lorraine Higgins' bills, since withdrawn
  - The EU Terrorism Content Directive...
  - The new Copyright Directive...
  -