Craigslist removes personals section citing HR 1865 FOSTA, new 'Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017'

[Syntaxvgm]

Quote

US Congress just passed HR 1865, "FOSTA", seeking to subject websites to criminal and civil liability when third parties (users) misuse online personals unlawfully.

Any tool or service can be misused. We can't take such risk without jeopardizing all our other services, so we are regretfully taking craigslist personals offline. Hopefully we can bring them back some day.

To the millions of spouses, partners, and couples who met through craigslist, we wish you every happiness!

https://www.craigslist.org/about/FOSTA
Text on the law 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865

 

As predicted, this overreaching law is a move that makes all sites responsible for what people do on them and the communications they send, wrapped nicely in a 'stop sex trafficking' wrapping paper. 

This won't be the end of it. Expect major changes from other sites as well. This is an attack on free peach platforms. 

Previously, 47 U.S.C. § 230 protected platforms for liability of what their users said on them, and has long been an essential part of what allowed the web to grow without legal trouble, and without it we may not see social media like we have today. 

Quote

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider

Now this protection is gone. The broadly worded law may be used to even target those who don't even know what is taking place on their platform. 

In my opinion, this is much worse than the end of net neutrality, and I really do not like the lack of attention this is getting in comparison. 

One of the worst parts is this law applies retroactively. Yep. Because that's how new laws are supposed to work. 

 

Just to recap, site owners are now responsible for all communications that happen on their platform. 

Any site owner brave enough will have to find a hosting company brave enough, as they will likely be targeted to. 

This is something that China would do, not the US.
This is censorship, and nothing else. 

 

edit

As I was writing this post, the News subreddit has just now hidden this post that was on the front page, citing that the link, craigslist's official statement, is not a news source

[Guest]

Can America just stop?

Their internet is bad, their laws are bad, the medical industry is beyond bad,

Is anything good down there?

[Cyberspirit]

9 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

 

Spoiler

 

https://www.craigslist.org/about/FOSTA
Text on the law 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865

 

As predicted, this overreaching law is a move that makes all sites responsible for what people do on them and the communications they send, wrapped nicely in a 'stop sex trafficking' wrapping paper. 

This won't be the end of it. Expect major changes from other sites as well. This is an attack on free peach platforms. 

Previously, 47 U.S.C. § 230 protected platforms for liability of what their users said on them, and has long been an essential part of what allowed the web to grow without legal trouble, and without it we may not see social media like we have today. 

Now this protection is gone. The broadly worded law may be used to even target those who don't even know what is taking place on their platform. 

In my opinion, this is much worse than the end of net neutrality, and I really do not like the lack of attention this is getting in comparison. 

One of the worst parts is this law applies retroactively. Yep. Because that's how new laws are supposed to work. 

 

Just to recap, site owners are now responsible for all communications that happen on their platform. 

Any site owner brave enough will have to find a hosting company brave enough, as they will likely be targeted to. 

This is censorship, and nothing else. 

 

 

Does this only apply to the U.S. or is this worldwide?

[Syntaxvgm]

Just now, Some Random Member said:

Can America just stop?

Their internet is bad, their laws are bad, the medical industry is beyond bad,

Is anything good down there?

Hey overseas a guy was just finally found guilty of a hate crime for having a dog to a nazi salute as a joke. We're not winning this war of oppression but we're trying to catch up. 

[Syntaxvgm]

Just now, Cyberspirit said:

Does this only apply to the U.S. or is this worldwide?

This is the US, but US restrictions on the internet tend to have a worldwide effect. This was what the fight against SOPA years ago was about. 

[NTDaws]

4 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

Hey overseas a guy was just finally found guilty of a hate crime for having a dog to a nazi salute as a joke. We're not winning this war of oppression but we're trying to catch up. 

really? a hate crime for that, if there are no tracing of Nazi Involvement that I don't see the problem.

[Cyberspirit]

5 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

This is the US, but US restrictions on the internet tend to have a worldwide effect. This was what the fight against SOPA years ago was about. 

It's been pretty rough over there lately.

So basically now people can't just say whatever because they can be held responsible for it? I hope that sentence makes sense.

 

Quote

Hey overseas a guy was just finally found guilty of a hate crime for having a dog to a nazi salute as a joke. We're not winning this war of oppression but we're trying to catch up. 

2

People can't even joke around anymore?

[Mutoh]

6 minutes ago, Cyberspirit said:

Does this only apply to the U.S. or is this worldwide?

Just the U.S so far, even in Canada the personals are still there (or at least where I am).

 

 

 

So if you're not from the States, those questionable massages from Cindy won't be going anywhere as of yet. 

[Syntaxvgm]

3 minutes ago, Being Delirious said:

really? a hate crime for that, if there are no tracing of Nazi Involvement that I don't see the problem.

 

3 minutes ago, Cyberspirit said:

It's been pretty rough over there lately.

So basically now people can't just say whatever because they can be held responsible for it? I hope that sentence makes sense.

 

People can't even joke around anymore?

Yep. Speaking out against it makes you an alt righter not just someone with a legitimate concern. 

[NTDaws]

Just now, Syntaxvgm said:

 

Yep. Speaking out against it makes you an alt righter not just someone with a legitimate concern. 

ugh the world is getting dumb and dumber.

[an actual squirrel]

I have no issue with this. If you are going to make an escort service, it's your responsibility to make sure there is no human trafficking. If you can't do that, then yea, shut down your thing to create less venues for sex trafficking. 

 

America should take a European approach and have a brothel system that is subject to federal regulations. Online escorts are just asking for trouble.

[Cyberspirit]

Just now, an actual squirrel said:

I have no issue with this. If you are going to make an escort service, it's your responsibility to make sure there is no human trafficking. If you can't do that, then yea, shut down your thing to create less venues for sex trafficking. 

 

America should take a European approach and have a brothel system that is subject to federal regulations. Online escorts are just asking for trouble.

As far as I understand this applies to all websites. Does it not?

[Syntaxvgm]

4 minutes ago, an actual squirrel said:

I have no issue with this. If you are going to make an escort service, it's your responsibility to make sure there is no human trafficking. If you can't do that, then yea, shut down your thing to create less venues for sex trafficking. 

 

America should take a European approach and have a brothel system that is subject to federal regulations. Online escorts are just asking for trouble.

 

3 minutes ago, Cyberspirit said:

As far as I understand this applies to all websites. Does it not?

This is much, much boarder than sex trafficking and applies everywhere. 

Remember, laws taking away rights are typically labeled as something you can't possibly be against right? The kids, sex trafficking, terrorism, patriotism..

[Mutoh]

Whatever the intentions are, I would think a lot of the sex workers that use craigslist to advertise themselves were probably able to be independent, choose their own prices and customers and didn't have to deal with things like pimps and all of the abuse that comes with it. Taking away that avenue and forcing them back into things like streetwalking etc... isn't really solving sex trafficking issues IMO and I think it's a bit of a step back in how we should be dealing with sex workers in general.

 

 

 

[Tcrumpen]

Here in the UK the only people using Craigslist are bots

[an actual squirrel]

50 minutes ago, Cyberspirit said:

As far as I understand this applies to all websites. Does it not?

It allows victims of sex trafficking to sue websites where they were advertised on. So it doesn't affect that many websites, basically only websites involved with online prostitution.

[peanuts104]

1 hour ago, an actual squirrel said:

It allows victims of sex trafficking to sue websites where they were advertised on. So it doesn't affect that many websites, basically only websites involved with online prostitution.

Except they could come back and decide that other "objectional" content on websites needs to have this protection stripped as well.  This sets a dangerous legal precedent.  Moreover, the retroactive measures in this bill are ludacris and I'm pretty sure it's illegal/unconstitutional.  This will cost people a lot of money and the only ones happy about it will be the lawyers.

[kokakolia]

3 hours ago, Mutoh said:

Whatever the intentions are, I would think a lot of the sex workers that use craigslist to advertise themselves were probably able to be independent, choose their own prices and customers and didn't have to deal with things like pimps and all of the abuse that comes with it. Taking away that avenue and forcing them back into things like streetwalking etc... isn't really solving sex trafficking issues IMO and I think it's a bit of a step back in how we should be dealing with sex workers in general.

 

 

 

Except they're not taking away anything. Sex workers will just use another site. So this accomplishes nothing but making Craigslist look "good" to the public. 

[Ryujin2003]

This is a good move, kind of.. I a mean, that stuff should happen, or should be kept to dark web content instead of Craigslist.

 

However, I feel this won't fix anything. Those involved in human trafficking will just migrate to another site.

[DoctorWho1975]

Human trafficking is not a large problem in the US, not even sure its a small one.. it has become the latest "For the Children" where you can do whatever the fuck you want as long its For The Children.

[Taf the Ghost]

There's a "Google Murders Facebook" angle to this, but I've yet to find exactly which group is funding the push for this. It's a very specific approach to destroy specific sections of the Internet. That requires planning, funding and interest groups with that angle. Don't fall for any of the discussion points, that isn't what it is about. It's far more likely moves to kill discussion online.

[Lurick]

49 minutes ago, Ryujin2003 said:

This is a good move, kind of.. I a mean, that stuff should happen, or should be kept to dark web content instead of Craigslist.

 

However, I feel this won't fix anything. Those involved in human trafficking will just migrate to another site.

 

1 hour ago, kokakolia said:

Except they're not taking away anything. Sex workers will just use another site. So this accomplishes nothing but making Craigslist look "good" to the public. 

 

I've bolded the most important part. It won't stop anything and there are many instances of the current sites working WITH law enforcement to stop sex trafficking and additionally helping those involved to get out or at the very least, see far less risk by helping them screen clients. Now they'll be pushed further underground to places that won't help stop it and won't help those looking to get out, to actually get out, and making those who do stay have to take much more risk.

 

Edit:

Just to provide an example, before Craigslist removed a lot of the adult sections because a bunch of AG's decided to grandstand "fighting" prostitution, they had worked closely with law enforcement to help them out. After they were forced to remove it they could no longer help out.

[Drak3]

8 hours ago, an actual squirrel said:

I have no issue with this. If you are going to make an escort service, it's your responsibility to make sure there is no human trafficking. If you can't do that, then yea, shut down your thing to create less venues for sex trafficking. 

 

America should take a European approach and have a brothel system that is subject to federal regulations. Online escorts are just asking for trouble.

Except Craigslist's personal ads weren't an escort service in any capacity.

[Jito463]

On 3/23/2018 at 10:35 AM, Some Random Member said:

Is anything good down there?

Plenty, just not much of it having to do with government.

 

As for this law, I wonder why I haven't heard about this before now.  As others have stated, this seems like a very dangerous precedent to set.  I feel this is one that's going to end up before the Supreme Court at some point.  All that's left now is to see what side of liberty the SCOTUS comes down on.

[AlTech]

On 23/03/2018 at 3:28 PM, Syntaxvgm said:

This is an attack on free peach platforms. 

*free speech