The case of Section 230 and the "Law of Unintended Consequences"

One of the more heated conversations (aside from politics, as always) at last night's social event(s) was the growing concern about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the federal law that offers very great protection to websites of all stripes, including TER, BackPage, CraigsList, etc.

A potentially significant change in the law is in the works, passed by Congress and soon on the President's desk for action. https://www.npr.org/sections/alltech...bout-to-change

Potentially significant has already forced some changes.

CL has closed its personals sections. TER has shut down some of its U.S. sections. BackPage has acknowledged the potential issues but nothing in its ad sections have changed at this moment.

However, some very large U.S. based web corporations and operations have very publicly protested, indeed lobbied Congress to NOT make the change. Think large as in FaceBook, Google, Twitter, Yelp, and the internet community-wide Electronic Freedom Foundation, https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 which cited serious flaws in the law's revisions, making it pretty obvious (to me and to other observers) that federal lawsuits challenging the new law will be filed quite soon.

One thought occurs to me and that is the "law of unintended consequences" which holds that lawmakers often think they are doing the right thing by passing a law, but then that new law allows or causes other things to happen, which were not intended nor even thunk out.

Here's one "thunk" from my perspective.

Right now, pay for play -- e.g. "prostitution" -- is not a federal crime but is regulated by the States.

Part of the new law appears to federalize prostitution as criminal. And allow States some leeway in using the new law to prosecute.

So here's the conundrum (which is not a sex barrier device) which will quickly (imo) face some judges in both federal and state courts -- perhaps think California? -- considering that recent legal rulings and laws have acted to truly free all U.S. citizens from restrictions on gender bias, such as same gender marriage, and enable adults to more or less do what ever they want socially.

Up next on the marriage "legal" frontier will be "plural marriages" especially considering that immigrant Muslims such as one man with two or three legal wives are allowed into the country with the relationship legally intact.

Not too far a step from there, legally, to predict that federal and state laws prohibiting and criminalizing adult P4P will soon face increased legal challenges, which, imo, could add way more protection to review and ad websites.

Think about it!

The way I see the law, especially after people are looking at strengthening security of communication in light of the bill, it's just sweeping it under the rug and turning the lights out. They'll have to find the traffickers blindly along with everyone else. At least now, it's in the open and can be identified. So I see what you're saying about unintended consequences.

I agree with both of you. Prohibition laws should have congress a valuable lesson years ago. Simply put where there’s a demand there will be a supply! No amount of laws, walls, etc will deter the activity! In our particular case for example Facebook could possibly end up flooded with ad profiles (Nevermind I call it facefuck already!). Alternatively ,like Grey pointed out, it will make hobbying more dangerous for all parties involved. Regardless of the outcome mongers will continue on only difference will be the people they are supposedly trying to protect will be lost in the crowd, just my 2 cents!

!! Prohibition laws should have taught congress a valuable lesson years ago.

The problem is congress does not learn from history or prior mistakes.

!! Prohibition laws should have taught congress a valuable lesson years ago.

The problem is congress does not learn from history or prior mistakes. Originally Posted by Samcro84

True dat!

Read a lot about girls being in more danger due to valuable tools being stripped such as sites like this, screening sites, and other valuable information. Many will wonder out to the streets or back to the strip clubs putting themselves at risk. Its not a good bill at all. Kinda defeats the purpose as trafficking will also go lights out in exclusive clubs, elite households and other parts you'll never find. Its right here and we call that shit out every day. They just don't want to "see it" on the web but somehow shoving it in a dark ally or into a room no one knows where is apparently better. They just may have got a lot more people into much worse situations and maybe never found. Sad.

And now we have FOSTA

And now we have FOSTA Originally Posted by sinbadd

Yes, fosta was the original and Sesta is the modified version. Both aim to take down escort sites due to sex trafficking.

And, now the "CLOUD" Act in the omnibus funding bill adds expands invasion of privacy even more -- no need to discuss in this thread but here's a link https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2348013 which so greatly openly violates Constitutional protections for all of that it will probably be challenged even before it is published in the Federal Register.

smh at the fools in Congress who think they have the power to summarily suspend the Constitution!

Found this in the Austin forum. Perhaps someone can make heads or tails of it. It's a long one...

https://medium.com/@TechFreedom/yes-...l-d9f58ffb0927

Section 230 could still save SESTA from affecting Sex type workers right- ( especially Eccie ? ) ???? Has President Trump signed the bill?? Will he veto it ???? I'm trying to understand ALL the information we currently know on the subject. Thank you in advance. Z.

9Its in debates right now yes. Section 230 and first amendment rights outweigh SESTA but that may change as they move forward. Sites may go down or advertising may go away so we are left with discussions and reviews only on some sites while eccie has placed a 21 and up policy for providing here. Will see how it plays out. Just keep on top of the discussions on the board in SA, surrounding cities and here as well...

https://eccie.net/showthread.php?p=1...post1060638697

https://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2339523&page=2