New US law SESTA/FOSTA ban specific user content. Severe penalties for webmasters

PoetJC

⚧ Jacquii: Kween of Hearts ⚧
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
21,040
I do not think that is realistic. For a small forum you are right. But try keeping track of thousands of posts a month, as a hobby. If you run a forum large enough then you know that you will never be able to control everything that members post.
Sad to say, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is the foundation of the modern internet.

With this new law holding site operators responsible for user-submitted content, that's the ballgame. Many sites will shut down entirely. This is basically:

View attachment 50514
Unfortunately - I agree with both of these sentiments.
And it's actually surprising really. When I first read the thread - I thought to myself that this is some straight, big-government owned, GOP partisan ****. The 97-2 vote really defines this piece of legislation as overwhelmingly supported, to the point of being the most amicable piece of legislation the US Congress has passed in the past decade. But at the same time I'm shocked. When I read the gist of the legislation - it almost reads as a supplement of sorts to the extremely partisan "Net Neutrality" stance that the majority of democrats disagree with. This legislation seems to fly in the face of Net Neutrality. Doesn't it?

Not only that - but it seems a legislation that makes the "small" guy/ hobbiest forum owner liable for things that only the "big guys" only would be able to defend in a court of law. I'm confused actually... Does anyone else see the hypocrisy and/or contradiction as concerns the democratic party voting for this legislation BUT at the same time being FOR the concept of net neutrality? How can you be for net neutrality - but want to penalize the "small" guy for content posted by his/her users? IDK... Just seems a confused hodgepodge of a piece of legislation if you ask me... o_O

J.
 

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,047
How can you be for net neutrality - but want to penalize the "small" guy for content posted by his/her users?
Although this law doesn't affect me, I actually support the concept (if not the implementation). I think it actually fits well with net neutrality. I mean if everyone is to be treated equally online, regardless of their relative size or power, it only follows that everyone should be equally accountable for the content they deliver.

The downside, of course, is there is no size discount when it come to the cost of defending yourself legally.
 

feldon30

Adherent
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
431
Large companies can easily absorb compliance costs with overreaching legislation like this. Small companies may look at the cost of even consulting a lawyer versed in the topic ($500+/hr?) and choose to shut down or relocate.

You are conflating Equality with Justice.

aeq2wire.com_wp_content_uploads_2018_04_equality_justice.png
 

PoetJC

⚧ Jacquii: Kween of Hearts ⚧
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
21,040
Although this law doesn't affect me, I actually support the concept (if not the implementation). I think it actually fits well with net neutrality. I mean if everyone is to be treated equally online, regardless of their relative size or power, it only follows that everyone should be equally accountable for the content they deliver.

The downside, of course, is there is no size discount when it come to the cost of defending yourself legally.
Intriguing comment.
I tend to worry about the downside though, as .... it seems that the equality factor is (unintentionally?) actually unequal...

Large companies can easily absorb compliance costs with overreaching legislation like this. Small companies may look at the cost of even consulting a lawyer versed in the topic ($500+/hr?) and choose to shut down or relocate.

You are conflating Equality with Justice.

View attachment 50546
Riveting.
Quite thought provoking. So ... I'll be thinking about this one. #WOW!


J.
 

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,047
You are conflating Equality with Justice.
Actually, I was ignoring "justice" which very often is just a word people use when they want to have their cake and eat it too.

Laws must apply equally across the board. It is up to the courts to determine how to interpret the laws to a given situation.
 

feldon30

Adherent
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
431
Actually, I was ignoring "justice" which very often is just a word people use when they want to have their cake and eat it too.

Laws must apply equally across the board. It is up to the courts to determine how to interpret the laws to a given situation.
Every US court considers scale and compliance costs when reviewing regulations. This may surprise you, but the United States not a purely capitalist society. On countless occasions over this country's first 200 years, courts and lawmakers stepped in to check the unbridled greed of pure capitalism and make sure that small business has a chance. Less so in the last 30 years.
 

Ramses

Adherent
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
323
So far as I understand, the US, specifically the FBI can close all sites, forums dealing with the topic of prostitution worldwide?
 

Alfa1

Administrator
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,964
If the sites cater to the US, then yes.
 

davert

Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
224
Backpage has been noted as being particularly up front about prostitution. Craigslist discouraged it, in contrast, but people figured out ways around the restrictions. You'll notice nobody seized Craigslist (partly because they dropped their personals in time).

Don't overreact to this. First, there have always been restrictions on free speech in the US. Second, nobody’s coming for your guns and I have no idea how that even got into this thread. Third, it doesn't affect plain ol’ porn, including R-rated avatars and sex jokes, just solicitations of prostitution. And yes, I do expect to say fourth, I doubt it'll survive for long. (The backpage notice indicates that child porn or prostitution was involved, I notice — I’d like to think that’s government overreach but I’m too old to be that optimistic.)

As for the equality vs justice graphic, I just have to point out that the “justice” does reflect equality of opportunity.
 

SaN-DeeP

TechArena.IN
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
4,236
It seems Giants are now flexing muscles over entire Internet..
Since it is very much widely accepted across every country on earth.. and mostly every human is in presence of same..
(MOST WEALTHIEST THING TO CONTROL/DIPLOMAT ON EARTH TODAY)

Google.Microsoft both are making unthinkable laws which shall only benefit the BIG BRANDS who pay and can pay more to stay (though they create such crap contents on basis/contradiction of research etc.), they are endless companies doing same..

Lets talk about youtube, which gets more then enough DMCA notices per hour then any other site on WEB ?

These laws will/should play for a while then evaporate, they cannot start charging us to breathe !!!!
(inhale and have there copyrights on freely available environment)
US Goverment made/started Internet for what ? (using in World War, what are they doing now) ?

It will start in US and they shall be enforced everywhere, (specially Google/Microsoft) doing same since a decade or more)
 

davert

Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
224
As you pointed out, YouTube gets an immense number of DMCA notices, and for that matter frequently has to remove child porn and such. I can't imagine they are happy about this law — and Google (or Alphabet) owns YouTube.

I doubt very much Microsoft or Google is behind this. If you look at United States politics, you can clearly see powerful “religious” (note the quotes) groups which influence legislation — check out the birth control or evolution controversies for evidence of that. In the 2008 election, every single presidential candidate of one party even swore they believed in a literal Bible, and I’m pretty sure none of them did, since most theologians don’t...
 

SaN-DeeP

TechArena.IN
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
4,236
Everything is a game for MONEY/POWER.. Anything else I am missing ?
Money comes with Power..
Power gives more Money..

Take off both the things from mass majority making laws, it leaves those 2 things only in hands of few..
This has been happening since ages of history !
 

davert

Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
224
I don’t think you can explain history accurately with that perspective. Yes, there are things you’re missing, and there’s a whole body of research to prove it... but other than pointing you to, say, JSTOR or PsychOpen (https://www.psychopen.eu/browse-publications/) I don’t know what to say, really. That’s my last word on the subject, since I don’t want to derail this thread any more than this.
 

mysiteguy

Migration Expert
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
3,079
I doubt very much Microsoft or Google is behind this. If you look at United States politics, you can clearly see powerful “religious” (note the quotes) groups which influence legislation — check out the birth control or evolution controversies for evidence of that. In the 2008 election, every single presidential candidate of one party even swore they believed in a literal Bible, and I’m pretty sure none of them did, since most theologians don’t...
John McCain, who ended up as the Republican candidate, not only did not believe in a literal Bible, he also criticized using religion as a political wedge: "Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."

Only one Republican nominee stated he believed in a literal Bible, Mike Huckabee (Baptist Preacher). Mitt Romney said some of it was allegory, Rudy Giuliani said it was not literal, Ron Paul has made numerous statements over the years showing he didn't believe it was literal, etc. And not a single one of them "swore" it.

While there are powerful religious groups influencing legislation, there are powerful groups of all kinds on the left and the right.
 

davert

Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
224
I can't find any evidence for that statement, so I will withdraw it and leave it at that. It may have been in 2000 or 2004, and I got the date wrong... or it may have been misreported... or I may have misremembered... or it may have happened and I just can't find it. In any case, I can't prove it, so I'll take it out.
 

SaN-DeeP

TechArena.IN
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
4,236
I can't find any evidence for that statement, so I will withdraw it and leave it at that. It may have been in 2000 or 2004, and I got the date wrong... or it may have been misreported... or I may have misremembered... or it may have happened and I just can't find it. In any case, I can't prove it, so I'll take it out.
Respected Sir, Kindly confirm to whom does this following URL belongs:
(uri) = https://www.facebook.com/pg/developerworks/

Thanks.
Your expert opinion shall be welcomed, please dont take days/weeks/etc.
 

MagicalAzareal

Magical Developer
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
702
To be fair to FOSTA, even though it is a horrible horrible law, it is smacking some of those really blatantly mismanaged sites.

For instance, anything legal goes 8chan, supposedly had boards filled with images which were almost child pornographic, but not close enough to be legally considered such, so they would be in skimpy clothes for people to look at. They used to be fairly infamous for that in the news, it follows the law to the letter, but spits on the spirit of the law.

After FOSTA passed, 8chan's administrators were forced to delete those boards. If it does get struck down, then perhaps Congress might want to put a solution together for things like that, if at all possible.
 

MagicalAzareal

Magical Developer
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
702
Some members of Congress are making moves towards getting SESTA / FOSTA repealed, but there are a lot of lawmakers they'll have to convince. For now, they're looking into doing a study into the pro and cons of the law.

There are also some reports that it was not Fosta which took down Backpage, as popular media suggested, but the Travel Act which existed long prior to Fosta, although I cannot presently confirm this.

This has all and all been a pretty terrible law which has had a lot of ramifications on other things, but achieved none of what it purported to achieve. It would help if the Supreme Court were a little less craven.
 
Top