Hacker News Reader

Comment by unethical_ban | Hacker News Reader

My impression is that in practice this would only be used to target sites that extensively are shown to be used for trafficking.

On the flipside, super vague laws like "we'll prosecute if we feel like it" are dangerous, and it would have been interesting for more sites to have a "protest day" to show just how unreasonable the law really is.

Additionally, I wonder how many users were using the forum vs. how much it cost to run vs. its benefit to PragProg's bottom line.

View on HN

As you say it will only be used against the bad guys, until if isn't. Like civil forfeiture, which originally targeted dig dealers, it week expands over time to be anything and everything that runs afowl of some interest.

Oh sweet summer child. The police can just take your money. I love how you imagine you have to do something wrong or be opposed to something to trigger this. No. You have money. They can take it.

> Like civil forfeiture, which originally targeted dig dealers,

Civil forfeiture did not originally target drug dealers.

Well that's the thing about the slippery slope argument... it always leads to jackbooted thugs marching into your living room and by then it's too late

Having heard this argument made so many times in my lifetime, I've been awaiting the sound of the jackboots on the stairwells for decades

This eternal vigilance has now become tiresome. So much to watch for, I don't think I can keep it up

This is a rough one, because the intent is genuinely good, but - as usual - the implementation is very poor. That always makes it extremely difficult to talk about reasonably with most people.

I’d say it’s very much up for debate whether the intent was “genuinely good”.

When Congress writes a law which includes ex post facto criminal liability, I don’t care if they claim it’s for the children, it’s foul play and can no longer be considered good intentioned.

The implementation is poor in precisely such a way that it is a powerful tool waiting to be abused out of caprice or favoritism.

I doubt that the intent was good at all. Various companies have been trying to get legislation to let them go after (with legal action) websites holding or referencing "illicit online content" (not necessarily sexual in nature) even when such content is user generated. This is just another evolution of SOPA and PIPA carefully given a name that would make fighting it political suicide. It's a fairly common tactic. Even the organizations trying to fight online predation say that at best, SESTA won't do anything to help and more likely than not will hinder their efforts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com