Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA • Hacker News Board

Re: Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

#471

Post by emiliobumachar » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 4:25 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #304

emiliobumachar wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You bring forth a compelling theory, but I don't think it's true. Compare the market for contraband or counterfeited booze and cigarettes, which "mirrors" legal booze and cigarettes, with the market for cocaine and heroin, where "all the surrounding paraphernalia is direct evidence".

OK, go on, if someone is smoking an illegally imported cigarette it's nearly impossible to tell just by looking that there's been a crime. If they're doing a line you know within a small error margin without any investigation. Why, because the former is hidden by the legally allowed behaviour.

Legal cigarettes cap the profits that can be had from illegal cigarette trade. With cocaine, you can charge 100x production costs. This creates incentives that are sure to produce an endless supply of dealers, regardless of how draconian enforcement is.

Re: Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

#472

Post by dmix » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 4:25 PM UTC

erikpukinskis wrote: post #436

rmrm wrote: post #428

I find a somewhat irresolvable issue on the liberal viewpoint of female sexuality and using sex to sell things (or selling sex directly) I see a lot of push back and negativity towards things like "booth babes" and other models that are employed to use their sexuality to help sell something. And I dont really argue with that, from a consumer angle. But I do also hear and feel for those models, who likely rightly say,…

In this case the typical liberal and the radical liberal are split, much as with trans identity. To sum it up with too broad of a brush, liberal (mainstream) feminists think sex work is positive, and that only coercion to sex should be criminalized. Radical feminists see sex “work” as an extreme outlier amongst sex trafficking which by their measure constitutes the vast majority of the sex trade. They would consider…

There is a long long history of well intentioned laws that liberals push through that end up harming the very same groups, or indirectly other 'vulnerable' groups, they were originally seeking to help.

The problem is there is so often a disconnect between intentions and predictable outcomes when the bills are being crafted... or worse when actual negative outcomes are apparent yet bills continue to stay active for decades.

For ex: 1970s rent control laws in NYC/Toronto significantly reduced the supply of affordable housing after 5-10yrs while a significant percentage of upper/middle-class people ended up getting cheap rent-controlled apartments and never leaving. Not to mention the massive increase in landlord arsons (who had no other choice in order to 'renovate' the building) causing already bad ghettos in the Bronx to turn into war-zone looking places.

So the big question here: Does this law actually help stop sex trafficking? Does it justify the huge costs it imposes on these web sites for which millions of legal sex workers depend on for their livelihood, just to enforce a tiny minority of bad listings? Especially when they completely shut down? Are sex workers being forced to go back to the streets to look for work because it's too hard for them and their customers to find sex-work listing websites?

Or more generally: First: Does it work, Second: if it does, how do they stack up against the side-effects and externalities imposed on law abiding people/industry to achieve that outcome?

Re: Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

#473

Post by qntty » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 4:26 PM UTC

erikpukinskis wrote: post #436

rmrm wrote: post #428

I find a somewhat irresolvable issue on the liberal viewpoint of female sexuality and using sex to sell things (or selling sex directly) I see a lot of push back and negativity towards things like "booth babes" and other models that are employed to use their sexuality to help sell something. And I dont really argue with that, from a consumer angle. But I do also hear and feel for those models, who likely rightly say,…

In this case the typical liberal and the radical liberal are split, much as with trans identity. To sum it up with too broad of a brush, liberal (mainstream) feminists think sex work is positive, and that only coercion to sex should be criminalized. Radical feminists see sex “work” as an extreme outlier amongst sex trafficking which by their measure constitutes the vast majority of the sex trade. They would consider…

radical liberal

Most radicals don't consider themselves liberal...

Re: Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

#474

Post by huehehue » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 4:27 PM UTC

k_sh wrote: post #452

e40 wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And let's not forget these are the small government, personal-freedom pushing Republicans perpetrating this shit.

FOSTA passed the Senate 97-2... I don't think that's a fair assessment in this instance

On that note, I wonder how many people might disagree with the bill's heavy-handedness but don't want to be seen as "opponents" to something like FOSTA.

Re: Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

#475

Post by sw_aaaaa » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 4:27 PM UTC

Noos wrote: post #322

syshum wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>But it is obvious to anyone who has used them that CL personals were utterly overwhelmed by people who are selling the other kind of Saas (Sex as a Service). That is also largely the government fault because back in 2010 they more or less forced CL to close the Sections of the site that was dedicated to Adult Services... and as predicted the people that were in those sections simply moved to the personals

Its their fault they forced craigslist to shut down a section openly advertising illegal content? I love the contortions people make. It's not like sex work is even legal in the majority of western nations

But sex work IS legal in the majority of western nations.

Re: Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

#476

Post by Bartweiss » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 4:28 PM UTC

Buge wrote: post #163

valuearb wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s completely limiting free choice and voluntary interactions between consenting adults. A huge personals section just got shut down. Unless you think 100% of personal ads are coerced sex trafficking, which would be rather crazy opinion. If you truly wanted to curb sex trafficking, you’d legalize prostitution, not drive it farther underground.

rpearl never claimed that it wasn't limiting free choice. rpearl claimed the intention wasn't to limit free choice. Intent and actual outcome are two completely different things.

Broadly speaking, I agree.

But at a certain point, it's reasonable to start objecting that an outcome was so obvious that people claiming they didn't intend it are either dishonest or incompetent, and in either case unfit to make the decision.

In this case, I suspect the answer is a little of each - a lot of anti-trafficking campaigns are run by people who openly oppose voluntary sex work, and also Congress is grossly incompetent at knowing which technology laws will limit free choice.

Given all that - I agree that it's worth knowing whether this was intended, but I worry "not our intent" becomes a shield for Congress to hide behind when they do things with horrible outcomes they were warned about well in advance.

Re: Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

#477

Post by TallGuyShort » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 4:30 PM UTC

PurpleBoxDragon wrote: post #338

SeeDave wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But if you suggest to legalize and regulate it as a means of protecting those who don't wish to participate, you will be seen as a demonic entity who is advocating for sex crimes to be legalized. I don't think one can defend a crusade that so easily and extremely ignores alternative solutions. I suspect a lot of the push is from very conservative or sex negative views who see this as an opening to roll back some of t…

It works both ways with different issues. Generally speaking every political discussion has degraded into accusing the other side of killing children.

Re: Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

#478

Post by etjossem » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 4:31 PM UTC

allannienhuis wrote: post #425

syshum wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm sure you want the police and laws there to protect children from sexual exploitation. Which is why I clearly said ADULT in my response. We protect children from all manner of things because their brains have not formed to the point where we as a society believe they can make rational choices for themselves However if we are going to have a free society at some point you become an adult, at which point I do not b…

I believe 'the boot' is a British term for the trunk of an automobile, which I think fits the bill here :)

The context is the British pharmacy "Boots" - think Walgreens. The parent commenter's argument is that our society at large does not want heroin and coke sold at the corner drugstore. They want these substances out of sight, out of mind.

It's all very well for us to imagine legalized drugs would be safer and more easy to regulate, but a majority of people disagree - so for the time being, they will continue being sold out of the boots of cars.

Re: Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

#479

Post by fokov » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 4:32 PM UTC

safety1st wrote: post #210

SeeDave wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The "scorched earth" approach only gets support when the nature and scope of the issues are distorted. What are the real issues in play? One is prostitution, a form of sex work which is illegal in most of the United States. The American public have varying feelings about its legal status, how enforcement should be carried out, etc. Public opinion doesn't support measures which endanger sex workers (which FOSTA does),…

> Public opinion is rightly massively against slavery in any form.

Slavery is still legal in the USA according to the 13th Amendment.

Re: Craigslist takes personals sections offline in response to FOSTA

#480

Post by jimktrains2 » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 4:35 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #105

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.

Meanwhile, net neutrality, which wasn't even policy until the Obama administration gets huge press all over the place. What happened to Silicon Valley's political activism?

NN rules predate the Obama administration in various forms.