Last edited:
Law Backpage has been seized
- Thread starter Null
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
Yeah, pretty much. I have no sympy for the webhosts that don't do what they can to curtail illegal activity (i.e. if the backpage guy wasn't cooperating with authorities, then he doesn't get my sympy), but on any site with user-generated content, abuse is going to happen.
Facebook could really end up in shit over this.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2014
Effectively yes.
As could Twitter.
They'll get around it by just handing over whatever information authorities want. Their ToS state that they'll co-operate with law enforcement so their users can't even complain about it.
Last edited:
Orkeosaurus
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2016
I guess this means taking down the personals section won't save craigslist considering backpages took down the section 99% of the prostitutes were posting to which basically killed the site.
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2014
First they came for the Prostitutes, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Prostitute.
Then they came for the Furfaggots, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not that much of one.
Then they came for the WikiHow dogs, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not Null.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Because I was not a Prostitute.
Then they came for the Furfaggots, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not that much of one.
Then they came for the WikiHow dogs, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not Null.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
I'd legit be fine with it, even if we can't make fun of China or their Wonderful and Glorious Leader Xi.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2017
Oh no! How will my ex be able to find cheap bookers now?
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2014
America has had obscenity laws since then. The "Miller Test" is used, which depends on "contemporary community standards" to determine obscenity (which is illegal to post online).
Which is of course a wonderful idea. Especially in this day and age of "outrage culture."
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2016
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2017
Never trust the current administration with powers you wouldn't trust the other party with. Does anyone here feel comfortable with Hillary Clinton or Michael Bloomberg being able to shut down websites for alleged "obscenity", safe harbour be damned? Do you trust them not to no-knock-raid political opponents using this law, to "investigate" alleged "violations"?
So if these changes stay on the book, and a hard left SocJus wins the Democratic nomination and Presidency in 2020 or 2024, what do you think will happen?
This is the same bullshit of Obama having taken ridiculously liberties as to what executive power covers, and then the same liberals who applauded that being terrified Trump might use those same powers.
So if these changes stay on the book, and a hard left SocJus wins the Democratic nomination and Presidency in 2020 or 2024, what do you think will happen?
This is the same bullshit of Obama having taken ridiculously liberties as to what executive power covers, and then the same liberals who applauded that being terrified Trump might use those same powers.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2018
What's frightening to me about this is that it wouldn't take much effort on the govt's part to have some jackass on taxpayer payroll to go and post C.P. on a website that has an opinion that D.C. doesn't like. The potential for this to be abused by the government is fucking astonishing.
Siegfried
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
This is why im harder on people i agree with
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2015
If Fapbook and the Twatter and the like all go down with us, I say the Farms and the chans would have been a worthwhile sacrifice.
Let the real Internet bloodsports begin.
Let the real Internet bloodsports begin.
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2017
It's all fun and games until someone commits a thought crime~
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2018
I was going to start my own human trafficking ring where I sell people for positive ratings on my post but now my dreams are over.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
As alarming as this seems, Backpage has been under fire for a decade regarding it's shady shit regarding child prostitution. I'm not entirely convinced the amendment to 230 wasn't specifically driven to shut down Backpage.
The feds have had a hateboner for that site since it's inception. And it's pretty much a given that the admins knew kids were getting pimped out there and did very little to stymie it, even acknowledged they knew about it but just shrugged their collective shoulders and said "We're not responsible for what users do."
Slippery slope? Yes. Unexpected or unwarranted? No.
The feds have had a hateboner for that site since it's inception. And it's pretty much a given that the admins knew kids were getting pimped out there and did very little to stymie it, even acknowledged they knew about it but just shrugged their collective shoulders and said "We're not responsible for what users do."
Slippery slope? Yes. Unexpected or unwarranted? No.
Mr. Poker in the Front Liquor in the Rear
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2017
When was the last time any of you heard of the Feds actually fixing anything? They probably had legitimate reasons for shutting it down.
That's fine, I don't care. What does trouble me is that new law the makes websites liable for how people, aka third parties, use their sites. It's only a matter of time that controversial websites will be responsible for the actions of its members, then for the actions of people who simply read them.
In short, I don't trust the government at stopping with websites that run questionable classified ads. Give them an inch and they'll take the whole mile.
That's fine, I don't care. What does trouble me is that new law the makes websites liable for how people, aka third parties, use their sites. It's only a matter of time that controversial websites will be responsible for the actions of its members, then for the actions of people who simply read them.
In short, I don't trust the government at stopping with websites that run questionable classified ads. Give them an inch and they'll take the whole mile.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2014
Of course they won't stop at "prostitution" ads. The US has an "opioid crisis" so they're bound to target the clearnet sites which allow drug ads (Craigslist, I'm looking at you). People have already been charged over localbitcoins transactions, so cryptocurrency sale ads are another obvious target.
The precedent this sets is horrific. Enshrining in law that no judicial permission or oversight is necessary is reprehensible.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2018
Now that the site is gone shit's gonna spread like underground fire, and the police won't be able to do shit.
And people still don't realize why is morally ok to ignore, marginalize and laugh at SJWs.
Spellskite
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2015
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2013
This is not that dramatic a change. The state has to argue that the operators of the site knew their site was being used for sex trafficking and that they did nothing about it.
It's the same way that the DMCA safe harbor doesn't apply if you are intentionally exploiting it to violate copyrights.
If you say to someone "yeah, the DMCA means I don't get held responsible if you infringe copyrights on my site, so go ahead, please do infringe copyrights on my site", then yeah, you don't receive that safe harbor.
Perhaps you can say that the idea that legislators are willing to fuck with the CDA is ominous. But that's about all you can say.
It's the same way that the DMCA safe harbor doesn't apply if you are intentionally exploiting it to violate copyrights.
If you say to someone "yeah, the DMCA means I don't get held responsible if you infringe copyrights on my site, so go ahead, please do infringe copyrights on my site", then yeah, you don't receive that safe harbor.
Perhaps you can say that the idea that legislators are willing to fuck with the CDA is ominous. But that's about all you can say.