Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

craigslist.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 654 posts

Re: Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

#111

Post by superkuh »

abritinthebay wrote: post #76
extralego wrote: post #54

It seems this and the new Youtube/Reddit bans would push more of this communication to the dark web and/or other private communication channels. I don't think I am comfortable with that. But, hopefully it leads to more support and push for privacy and decentralization. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-21/youtube-b... https://motherboard.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/ne9v5k/reddit...

There is something to be said for making a discouraged activity harder to do. Yes, it pushes these people underground but in a sense that is good as it makes it harder for them and harder to access them. In return it’s not much harder for authorities to infiltrate and there’s less non-illicit activity to filter. Not perfect, but it’s not always bad.

You are operating under the premise here that what youtube/reddit have banned is something illegal and immoral. Reddit literally banned forums for posting good deals they found for firearms and accessories online. And youtube is banning channels that feature people enjoying their completely legal hobby enjoyed by hundreds of millions of people.

No, the problem here is that governments and large institutions are using truly evil things to convince people to ban completely innocuous things for commercial reasons. This is online gentrification for the corps. And for government, using kids/terrorism/communists is the oldest trick in the book to violate the rights of their citizens.

Re: Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

#112

Post by TeMPOraL »

trhway wrote: post #45

97-2 in Senate. Probably only sex and drugs have such universal magical power over politicians of all colors.

If only NASA could say that they found on Mars a new substance that probably eliminates the desire to do drugs... We'd be having a golden age of space exploration now.

Re: Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

#114

Post by downandout »

confounded wrote: post #103
downandout wrote: post #100

I just read the text of this bill. The way it reads, the entire online dating industry should be closing its doors...tonight. CEOs of these companies face penalties of up to 25 years in prison. Why were there not massive protests over this? I had never heard of this bill before today.

I recommend that you subscribe to the blog of the EFF, and perhaps consider membership. They’ve been following this law in it’s various guises for quite some time, and providing tools for concerned citizens to contact their representatives effectively. Here’s some analysis of the proposals from October 2017: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/10/sex-trafficking-expert...

I’ll definitely subscribe and pay more attention to these issues. Thanks for the link!

Re: Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

#115

Post by sersi »

AFNobody wrote: post #88
tptacek wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose if you work directly with people on the front lines of that problem, Craigslist personals might seem pretty trivial in comparison.

To me, the odd thing is they focus on that instead of legalization and helping people report abuses. Legalization is far from perfect but abuse in Nevada brothels is much lower than as street walkers. It seems it's more a puritanical belief system than a genuine desire to render aid.

This is key. I strongly believe that legalization is the only answer to the problem. Driving things underground is only going to cause more issues and abuse to the sex workers.

It's kind of ironic when in France, for example, a law gets passed criminalizing the customers while the sex workers go in the street to protest that law saying that it will create more abuse (and one year after, they were right).

Trying to stop behaviors that will always exist in human societies doesn't work, it just drives the demand underground and if things are illegal already, then other more illegal, more abusive behaviors start to surface.

Re: Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

#116

Post by TeMPOraL »

jerezzprime wrote: post #46
jMyles wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's comparable insofar as, in each case the sociopolitical temperature of the moment has resulted in a reduction of the content available to users, even if the actual dynamic varies in the important ways you point out.

But one is through mandated censorship, the other is voluntary. YouTube decided to stop serving certain content to better serve it's customers, that is it's perogative as a business. Nothing is preventing a competitor from hosting such content.

One is mandated, other is voluntary, but they both reflect the same phenomenon happening in the society - that more and more topics are becoming "not acceptable" and thus get eliminated from popular areas on-line.

Re: Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

#117

Post by SeeDave »

DannyBee wrote: post #44

This is not surprising, but sad. Years ago, i was dragged (i was the only engineer in the local office) into a whitehouse (or maybe it was state department, i can't remember) sponsored working group on online sex trafficking. The non-profits dedicated to fighting this, while seemingly well-intentioned, were completely and totally unwilling to see any other perspective or try to find shared ground. It was scorched ear…

In defense of the "scorched earth approach or nothing" folks: from my perspective... it's a completely and totally human response to faceless, blameless, unapproachable (from their perspective) perpetrators and facilitators of systematic abuse and exploitation of innocent and vulnerable people.

If you've ever felt frustrated at an IVR system for routine tasks such as banking, restaurant reservations, canceling a gym membership, checking a gift card balance, etc. then you may understand where the "scorched earth" people are coming from when it comes to advocating for dozens, if not hundreds, of innocent victims who have been raped, exploited, and brutalized.

That said, I really wish that I could come forward with a solution to the online sex trafficking problem.

Re: Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

#118

Post by StanislavPetrov »

rpearl wrote: post #72
quotemstr wrote: post #68

I am fucking sick and fucking tired of people interfering with the free choice of individuals in any effort to "fix" society and "help" people. Lawmakers and advocates, have some epistemic humility and acknowledge that your own perspective may be mistaken. Not everything is oppression. Not every activity is injustice. Sometimes, people just fucking disagree.

The goal of the legislation in question is specifically to help individuals that have been coerced, against their free will, into sex trafficking. It is not about voluntary interactions between consenting adults. The legislation might be misguided or ineffective--I haven't really looked into it--but it very definitely isn't about restricting the free choice of individuals.

>The goal of the legislation

The goal isn't relevant. Nobody opposes the goal of ending sex trafficking. The issue is passing laws that restrict freedom and seek to regulate the interpersonal behavior of adults at the point of a gun. Laws should be judged and scrutinized based on their actual impact, not the goals and desires of the people who draft them.

Re: Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

#119

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

downandout wrote: post #100

I just read the text of this bill. The way it reads, the entire online dating industry should be closing its doors...tonight. CEOs of these companies face penalties of up to 25 years in prison. Why were there not massive protests over this? I had never heard of this bill before today.

>I had never heard of this bill before today.

Who was going to tell you about it? Time, NYT, CNN, WaPo? Nope.

Post reply on HN