Craigslist Is Shutting Down Its Personals Section (H.R. 1865)

WARNING: not here for a political debate

I'm a working schlub and in a mostly dry area so a few weeks ago I thought I'd see if I could find a FWB on Craiglist. 100 spam replies, 2 potential LE propositions, and 1 legit reply later I tried to go there tonight only to find this:

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!

So...what does that mean for ECCIE? I'm guessing this may be the nail in Backpage's coffin. Thoughts?

I do find it funny that the party that says gun manufacturers can't be sued if their product is used in a crime is now saying a website can be sued if a rogue user uses their product in a crime.

Also, I'm naive and new to all of this. Is trafficking really getting to be that bad, or "is this one of those phony bologna feel-good wars like the War on Drugs?" (gratuitous Futurama quote)

BP will be gone now. It was the named target of this new law.

BP will be gone now. It was the named target of this new law. Originally Posted by Blue Moon Man

Unless they fight it. DoJ even warned Congress that the law would not be constitutional.

Wow, that is crazyyyyy

It isn't constitutional, and it's just another 'stir the pot" thing. What is concerning, is that CL voluntarily changed up their website instead of banding together with others of like nature. So that doesn't do much for a positive outcome.
The real concern, is where are all the actual real people going to go for hook-ups??? lol

This could also be the end of ECCIe, guys and gals.

No it isnt first of eccie isnt a personals or dating site it is specifically a escort network no one is posting on an escort site looking for true love now if your on craigslist on personals like men4women and a girl posts a thread saying 60 hr of company thats misusing the site for unrelated purposes illegally using a dating service to solicite sex acts for money duh actually read what the bill says guys

1865, “FOSTA”, seeking to subject websites to criminal and civil liability when third parties (users) misuse online personals unlawfully.

It doesn't matter that ECCIE isn't personals or a dating site. This law will apply to all websites if it's upheld by the courts.

Reddit has banned r/escorts, r/maleescorts, and r/sugardaddy.

Under current law, the site can't be held legally liable if someone uses veiled terms to solicit commercial sex—aka prostitution—through the Craigslist personals. But FOSTA will change that, opening up Craigslist (and every other digital platform) to serious legal and financial jeopardy should it accidentally "promote" or "facilitate" prostitution.

Prostitution, mind you, is not sex trafficking, which has a distinct meaning both colloquially and under the law. In the simplest terms, prostitution involves consent and sex trafficking does not.

...the core of FOSTA makes it a federal crime to "promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person," punishable by up to 10 years in prison, plus fines. For promoting the prostitution of five or more people, the penalty is 25 years, and the same if promoting someone's prostitution "contributed to sex trafficking."

Sex workers don't have to worry about being punished for posting their own ads, but they could run afoul of the law if working in pairs or helping a colleague place an ad.

I hope the Department of Justice is right and this bill will be overturned in the courts.

Craigslist can afford to shut down personals because it’s a smaller part of their total site traffic. They’ve decided that the personals traffic isn’t worth the risk to the rest of their business. Backpage site traffic is basically all about the providers posting in their personal ads section. They wouldn’t exist without it. So they can’t afford to shut it down, and won’t. This is where the battle will be.

And if Backpage does go away, you’re going to see a surge of providers into other websites and social media.

if this thing stands, in my opinion it would be naïve to think that it could not be used against this forum as well.

Well of course Eccie is at risk too. I guess it boils down to whether the owner of Eccie (and Backpage and whoever else is mostly dependent on US based hobby related traffic) has made enough money to feel good about shutting the doors, turning off the lights, and walking away, vs the risk to their wealth of continued operation.

Maybe we should all be exchanging numbers before the lights go out.

Wack-a-mo They shut down one section and everybody moves to another Services/theraputic services and gigs already heating up. Stop blaming Trump he had to sign this because of recent headlines. This is all Mike Pence and the Evangelicals. The only way religion can survive is if you force your ideas on others.

look at the dallas coed discussions area, they are talking about it too

fwiw, the top two links in my signature offer some perspective.

We are all right to be concerned, but not, imo, to the point of paranoia.

However, many providers are saying potential disaster looms and trying to figure out how to react and cope.

What they mostly (due to age and lack of experience from "back when" do not know is that pre-internet the "hobby" flourished and many "escorts" did very well financially and physically.

That was before 1999, of course, and most of the resources available then still exist imo but have been out of sight due to the 'net.

I do find it funny that the party that says gun manufacturers can't be sued if their product is used in a crime is now saying a website can be sued if a rogue user uses their product in a crime. Originally Posted by RcbWG7Pr98

In the Senate, the bill passed 97-2 with one Republican and one Democrat voting against it. In the House, the bill passed 388-25 with 14 Republicans voting against it and 11 Democrats voting against it. Your point about party support of this legislation is as completely foolish as your supposition regarding guns.