[Non-political] News that makes you Laugh/Cry/Both...

maglag · Post by **maglag** » Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:27 pm

Thaluikhain wrote: Which might work for a day or maybe a week, but the truth will eventually come out to anyone who wants it. Now, absolutely they are trying that, but it's only going to really work on those who want to be lied to.

Which is still at least almost half of the USA population considering who's the current presidente.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:36 pm

Thaluikhain wrote:
Which might work for a day or maybe a week, but the truth will eventually come out to anyone who wants it. Now, absolutely they are trying that, but it's only going to really work on those who want to be lied to.

I don't think that's true. It's going to work on anyone who doesn't make an effort to thwart it. It doesn't have to be much of an effort, as after a week or two shakeout period the truth should be clear to anyone who wants it, but there's a large number of people who will have lost interest by then, even though they'd rather know the truth (whatever it is) rather than be told what they want to hear.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:20 pm

Chamomile wrote:
Thaluikhain wrote:
Which might work for a day or maybe a week, but the truth will eventually come out to anyone who wants it. Now, absolutely they are trying that, but it's only going to really work on those who want to be lied to.
I don't think that's true. It's going to work on anyone who doesn't make an effort to thwart it. It doesn't have to be much of an effort, as after a week or two shakeout period the truth should be clear to anyone who wants it, but there's a large number of people who will have lost interest by then, even though they'd rather know the truth (whatever it is) rather than be told what they want to hear.

This is the gist of it.

If they can make things hopelessly confusing for as little as three days, then they will have poisoned the vast majority of discussion that is going to happen on the vast majority of topics.

Surgo · Post by **Surgo** » Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:01 am

Hey look, my credit card info got stolen again. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-t ... story.html

As a computer security professional, that first sentence is exceedingly painful.

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:29 am

Nice. I booked a flight through Delta just barely within the window when they were compromised, so I'll join your shitty club Surgo. Figures. It seems like every time I get my credit card number memorized they ship me a new one because it got compromised. Again.

Motherfuckers.

I literally have no idea how many times my credit card information has been stolen due to the failures of corporations.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sun Apr 08, 2018 5:43 am

In Putin's America, Electric Avenue Rocks on Down to You!

Longes · Post by **Longes** » Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:06 pm

https://mashable.com/2018/03/27/microso ... 2wL5otmiqi

Offensive language and nudity are prohibited on skype starting next month. Also Microsoft reserves the right to investigate your 'content' should they suspect a violation.

Pariah Dog · Post by **Pariah Dog** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:42 am

Well shit. Guess its a good fucking thing I stopped using Skype. Also, piss, [EDITED], cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:19 am

Yeah, they're censoring and snooping on Skype as part of efforts to stop sex trafficking. Also, they don't have a fucking clue what sex trafficking is.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:25 am

Koumei wrote:Yeah, they're censoring and snooping on Skype as part of efforts to stop sex trafficking. Also, they don't have a fucking clue what sex trafficking is.

I would think that cam whoring is almost by definition not sex trafficking because you don't go anywhere.

-Username17

Pariah Dog · Post by **Pariah Dog** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:03 am

Less trafficking, and more control.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:46 am

As of soon, online platforms will be subject to civil liability and state criminal law with respect to sex trafficking which occurs on their platforms.

Let's say Alice and Bob hook up through tgdmb's PM's. Bob turns out to be an exploited sex worker. Bob sues tgdmb. Will he win? Who knows. Can fbmf afford the legal team he needs to even find the answer to that question? Probably not.

Let's say you're Tinder. There are women on Tinder who will ask for money in exchange for nudes or a hook-up. Some of those women sue Tinder. Will they win? Who knows. Can Tinder afford the legal team they need to even find the answer to that question? Probably, and they'll probably have to, because their app is so blatantly for hook-ups that filtering the prostitution and pseudo-prostitution out of it would be nigh impossible.

Let's say you're Microsoft. I'm sure some sex worker somewhere has used Skype to arrange a meeting with their client. That sex worker sues Microsft. Will they win? Who knows. Can Microsoft afford the legal team they need to even find the answer to that question? Probably, but why would they bother? Censor everything, banhammer on all reports, zero tolerance for the faintest hint of ambiguity. Minimize any appearance of tolerance for impropriety.

Some red states are going to pass some very, very, very regressive laws in response to this. Businesses are mostly not going to attempt to tailor their platforms to individual state law, because that's just not economical. You'll just see a lowest common denominator effect where Mississippi decides how much sex is allowed on the internet.

The internet is going to be fucking bizarre for awhile, mostly because the real effects of SESTA will be decided in the courts, and no one wants to be the canary in that particular coalmine. And the fact that the case has to actually be considered instead of auto-dismissed because safe harbour means any platform too small to afford a lawyer can be fucked outright, in much the same way copyright law currently works (or doesn't work, I should say).

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:05 pm

DSMatticus wrote: Some red states are going to pass some very, very, very regressive laws in response to this. Businesses are mostly not going to attempt to tailor their platforms to individual state law, because that's just not economical. You'll just see a lowest common denominator effect where Mississippi decides how much sex is allowed on the internet.

Man. Why can't they just bury something in their terms of service that says something to the effect of "If you live in Mississippi, you promise to abide by XYZ, as is state law. Any failure to do so will result in a cancellation of services blah blah blah"?

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:24 pm

If an online platform is liable, why aren't telecoms and phone companies?

Pariah Dog · Post by **Pariah Dog** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:24 pm

That'll be big brother's next step, Virgil.

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:08 pm

Didn't the UK already implement a porn filter that the telcos have to implement and the contract taking users have to specifically tell them to not have running for their access?

Iduno · Post by **Iduno** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:19 pm

Longes wrote:https://mashable.com/2018/03/27/microso ... 2wL5otmiqi

Offensive language and nudity are prohibited on skype starting next month. Also Microsoft reserves the right to investigate your 'content' should they suspect a violation.

Not just Skype. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/service ... rviceslist

You are no longer allowed to swear in Office 365 (the online one), and they are supposed to check your documents/emails to see if you're violating? I can't tell if that's just stupid, or stupid and hilarious.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:26 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
Koumei wrote:Yeah, they're censoring and snooping on Skype as part of efforts to stop sex trafficking. Also, they don't have a fucking clue what sex trafficking is.
I would think that cam whoring is almost by definition not sex trafficking because you don't go anywhere.

-Username17

Lure someone to a foreign country where they don't speak the language, then take away their money and their passport. Make them camwhore on skype, then take all the money they make. Shoot them if they try to leave, beat the shit out of them if they don't make you enough money.

The only difference between that and traditional sex trafficking is the webcam.

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:35 pm

Grek wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:
Koumei wrote:Yeah, they're censoring and snooping on Skype as part of efforts to stop sex trafficking. Also, they don't have a fucking clue what sex trafficking is.
I would think that cam whoring is almost by definition not sex trafficking because you don't go anywhere.

-Username17
Lure someone to a foreign country where they don't speak the language, then take away their money and their passport. Make them camwhore on skype, then take all the money they make. Shoot them if they try to leave, beat the shit out of them if they don't make you enough money.

The only difference between that and traditional sex trafficking is the webcam.

Because the everything else you added is sex trafficking, the camwhore part is garnish at this point.

Some resident of Portlandia doing a cam show with a ventriloquist dummy is going to get got as much as those exploiting the hypothetical Taken sex trafficking victim, which is the issue.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Mon Apr 09, 2018 10:45 pm

virgil wrote:If an online platform is liable, why aren't telecoms and phone companies?

Because they have their own laws - or at least precedent, I'm actually unfamiliar - and are not affected by these changes.

RobbyPants wrote:
DSMatticus wrote: Some red states are going to pass some very, very, very regressive laws in response to this. Businesses are mostly not going to attempt to tailor their platforms to individual state law, because that's just not economical. You'll just see a lowest common denominator effect where Mississippi decides how much sex is allowed on the internet.
Man. Why can't they just bury something in their terms of service that says something to the effect of "If you live in Mississippi, you promise to abide by XYZ, as is state law. Any failure to do so will result in a cancellation of services blah blah blah"?

Because TOS can't actually be used to waive liability.

There are now certain burdens on online platforms - unclear, vaguely defined burdens which have yet to be explored by case law - that they simply must meet when providing services to users. There's going to be some weird headlines after this is signed, and there's going to be a lot of companies turning their platforms into Puritan no-naughtiness zones in an attempt to avoid being in those headlines. We'll probably also see a shift away from digitally-enabled sex work to streetwalking, which is probably a net negative, and the FBI managed to tackle Backpage before this law went into effect, so I'm not sure what the net positive is even supposed to be. The enforcement mechanisms were there.

No, this is mostly a cultural conservatism anti-sex chilling effect thing that managed to pull bipartisan support because... well, I would guess because sex workers are evil, don't you know, and finding ways to actually protect them instead of driving them underground is simply not in the cards for either party. It's not politically expedient to stand-up for escorts in America's cultural climate, so no one's going to do so. If you actually wanted to hurt sex trafficking, you'd decriminalize prostitution and heavily regulate or criminalize every other part of the process - giving victims of sex trafficking safe haven in the legal system instead of making them complicit in their own victimization. This just drives the problem further into the dark corners of society where people don't have to see it and it still abso-fucking-lutely happens.

Thaluikhain · Post by **Thaluikhain** » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:01 am

DSMatticus wrote:If you actually wanted to hurt sex trafficking, you'd decriminalize prostitution and heavily regulate or criminalize every other part of the process - giving victims of sex trafficking safe haven in the legal system instead of making them complicit in their own victimization.

That only works if you get the police/wider society interested in protecting sex workers, though. Places have tried that, but only gotten so far as technically decriminalising it, and then gone on to pat themselves on the back rather than see if the issue has been addressed.

Almaz · Post by **Almaz** » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:40 am

"Decriminalize prostitution, but criminalize every other aspect" sounds a lot like the so-called "Nordic model" which has a tendency of maintaining the undesirable effect of driving sex work underground. Only a tiny sliver of locations, like Denmark, have pursued actual decriminalization.

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:54 am

Germany has legal prostitution as well.
Forced Prostituton / Pimps are forbidden.

Korwin · Post by **Korwin** » Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:21 pm

Austria has also legal Prostitution. But also the illegal variant...

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:58 pm

Actual sex workers have spoken in favour of the model used in New Zealand and, bizarrely, New South Wales. Meaning there is a single good thing about NSW I guess.

What you then do is simply allow sex workers the same legal protections and rights as literally any other worker (or indeed, person). And I imagine there might already be laws you can basically use against trafficking under the headers of kidnapping, holding people against their will, and slavery of any kind.