- 7,311
- 28,675
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
Today, Congress held a hearing on a new bill called "SESTA," or Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, an ostensibly well intended piece of legislation that, if enacted, could pose a grave threat to communities like ours.
Like all online communities, NikeTalk relies on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to protect it from liability for the posts or claims of its users.
In 2014, for example, NikeTalk received a threatening letter from someone claiming to represent a famous rapper. They argued that NikeTalk was publishing untrue claims that their client was involved in the assault of another rapper and the theft of his jewelry. While the story appeared on many news sites, from MTV to Complex, the threat of specious litigation could lead to smaller, independent sites like ours censoring unflattering or controversial content to avoid the costs of mounting a protracted legal defense. Section 230 of the CDA, however, makes clear that "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."
Any attack on section 230 threatens real time user generated comments on websites like ours. If a user posts something libelous or illegal on Twitter, it is that user, and not Twitter, that should be held liable. Were that to change, your online speech could be severely limited as a result.
NikeTalk is, obviously, vehemently opposed to the heinous and despicable crimes of sex trafficking. Unfortunately, SESTA is not about punishing those directly engaged in sex trafficking. Sex trafficking is, of course, already illegal. SESTA is, as described by Congress.gov, "A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify that section 230 of that Act does not prohibit the enforcement against providers and users of interactive computer services of Federal and State criminal and civil law relating to sex trafficking."
When you create exceptions to the Section 230, for any reason (however noble), you then place the burden on service providers like us to move from a reactive model, where users are able to post to our forums in real time and our staff then reacts to the best of their ability to remove any material believed to be in violation of the law and/or our community policies, to a proactive model, where user content must be manually pre-screened to ensure compliance before it ever appears on our website.
Imagine trying to hang out on NikeTalk and discuss an online sneaker release or Game 7 of the NBA Finals if everything you post must be read and approved by one of our moderators before it's visible to other readers or community members.
The best way to oppose sex trafficking is to oppose sex trafficking - not to imperil any website whose user comments could possibly facilitate it for any duration of time. SESTA does not offer increased funding for law enforcement agencies fighting sex trafficking, nor is it likely to deter websites that are otherwise already engaged in criminal activity. Rather, it creates a powerful disincentive for sites allowing real time user commenting and could make it cost prohibitive for small, independent sites like ours to compete against or even exist alongside the large, multi-billion dollar social media platforms that currently dominate the Internet.
If you live in the United States, we encourage you to contact your local representatives and urge them to oppose this or any other legislation that imperils the open Internet. The EFF runs a website with an automated form that will contact your local representatives for you. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
https://stopsesta.org/
Like all online communities, NikeTalk relies on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to protect it from liability for the posts or claims of its users.
In 2014, for example, NikeTalk received a threatening letter from someone claiming to represent a famous rapper. They argued that NikeTalk was publishing untrue claims that their client was involved in the assault of another rapper and the theft of his jewelry. While the story appeared on many news sites, from MTV to Complex, the threat of specious litigation could lead to smaller, independent sites like ours censoring unflattering or controversial content to avoid the costs of mounting a protracted legal defense. Section 230 of the CDA, however, makes clear that "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."
Any attack on section 230 threatens real time user generated comments on websites like ours. If a user posts something libelous or illegal on Twitter, it is that user, and not Twitter, that should be held liable. Were that to change, your online speech could be severely limited as a result.
NikeTalk is, obviously, vehemently opposed to the heinous and despicable crimes of sex trafficking. Unfortunately, SESTA is not about punishing those directly engaged in sex trafficking. Sex trafficking is, of course, already illegal. SESTA is, as described by Congress.gov, "A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify that section 230 of that Act does not prohibit the enforcement against providers and users of interactive computer services of Federal and State criminal and civil law relating to sex trafficking."
When you create exceptions to the Section 230, for any reason (however noble), you then place the burden on service providers like us to move from a reactive model, where users are able to post to our forums in real time and our staff then reacts to the best of their ability to remove any material believed to be in violation of the law and/or our community policies, to a proactive model, where user content must be manually pre-screened to ensure compliance before it ever appears on our website.
Imagine trying to hang out on NikeTalk and discuss an online sneaker release or Game 7 of the NBA Finals if everything you post must be read and approved by one of our moderators before it's visible to other readers or community members.
The best way to oppose sex trafficking is to oppose sex trafficking - not to imperil any website whose user comments could possibly facilitate it for any duration of time. SESTA does not offer increased funding for law enforcement agencies fighting sex trafficking, nor is it likely to deter websites that are otherwise already engaged in criminal activity. Rather, it creates a powerful disincentive for sites allowing real time user commenting and could make it cost prohibitive for small, independent sites like ours to compete against or even exist alongside the large, multi-billion dollar social media platforms that currently dominate the Internet.
If you live in the United States, we encourage you to contact your local representatives and urge them to oppose this or any other legislation that imperils the open Internet. The EFF runs a website with an automated form that will contact your local representatives for you. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
https://stopsesta.org/
, the lawmakers think they are slick
