Hacker News Reader

Comment by hlieberman | Hacker News Reader

This war very much effects us as technologists, both directly as restrictions on what we may build and operate, as well as indirectly through our ethical obligations to act with the public interest in mind.

For example, it would be illegal for me to run a website which let sex workers anonymously check a particular client’s phone number to see if someone had previously reported them as violent. FOSTA/SESTA would expose me to both criminal and civil liability, even if it wasn’t intentionally made with sex workers in mind, if I didn’t act to stomp out any sex workers from using the service.

View on HN

Yes, it does affect us, but let's not forget that FOSTA/SESTA, as well as the general stigma around sex work puts sex workers at real risk of violence and death.

Even "progressive" companies like Cloudflare kicked us off with ZERO warning after Switter (a social platform for sex workers) was covered in the press (https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/19/17256370/switter-cloudfla...), but neo-Nazi platforms were were given detailed blog posts on why they were kicked off (https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/ & https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/), and only after massive pressure from the community after people DIED. But a website where the goal is to increase safety for sex workers? Gone without warning.

It's bullshit like this that further strengthens our resolve to ensure that we (Assembly Four) continue to exist so we can continue to use our privilege to assist one of the most stigmatised groups in the world.

For more background on FOSTA/SESTA, why we started Assembly Four and Switter, see my article on Medium: https://medium.com/assembly-four/my-six-week-rollercoaster-r...

8chan was not a "neo-Nazi platform". Neo-Nazi content made up a minority of content on the side, though it was a substantial amount.

So it was a neo-nazi platform, just not exclusively.

In the same way that anything is a neo nazi platform. Facebook, twitter and instagram have their fair share of those too.

Turn on "showdead" and you'll find objectionable content here too.

Only if you also consider Reddit a neo-nazi platform

No, it was a platform for free speech and sharing images, which happened to include discussions between national socialists. It wasn't a "Neo-Nazi" platform any more than YouTube is.

"Elliot Rodger's Retribution" was posted on YouTube. How is this situation distinct from the Isla Vista one? E.g., why should YouTube not be blockaded, other than for reasons of corruption and nepotism?

On the other hand, I sort of worry about anonymously crowd-sourcing reputation like this. Putting aside the notion of sex workers for a minute, suppose you ran a site where people could report bad drivers by their license plate numbers. (I believe such sites exist.) If someone doesn't like you, they go on and file fake reports about you, and now you can't get a delivery job (etc). There have already been issues with more public entities on sites like Yelp which have caused people to lose their entire livelihood, and now you want to bring that sort of thing to individuals?

You don't need to look any further than ratemyprofessors.com for a thriving and, more to the point, legal example of this kind of site. So if this practice is going to be illegal, can it at least not be industry specific?

Are you saying that should be illegal? Doesn’t that seem like a violation of freedom of speech?

As it is, libel laws give you protection if you can prove the claims are false, and you can get civil damages if you show harm. What would you say should be legislated beyond that?

Well yes but reality might result in no cases because the victims cannot afford the legal fees, for example. It's a complex thing.

When reports are anonymous, you'll have trouble suing for libel. When the output of the site isn't a stated fact ("person x did y"), but a "calculated probability" without actually producing any of the reports ... good luck proving that the probability of you recklessly driving is below 50%.

It's not an easy decision, but I lean towards "should be illegal if done anonymously and without proof".

So you’re saying if I wrote a post on NextDoor saying you were a bad driver (no proof) and putting your license plate that should be illegal?

Would it be a civil thing where you could sue me for some amount, or would you make it a criminal infraction?

It's a thin line, but mostly I'd regulate the platform to not allow anonymous slander. Between individuals, it's most likely a civil issue, I'm not a huge fan of having criminal law creep into everything.

I'm pretty sure that "no anonymous slander" reduces the amount rapidly, so you end up with a bunch of legitimate accusations that people are willing to stand for because they can provide evidence. The whole "I don't like his hair, so I'm going to make up stories about him" stuff goes away.

The solution is easy: each report of bad driving must have a dashcam video attached.

That might work well for a site to report bad driving (though I believe most people still don't have dashcams, so it would hurt the effectiveness of the site a bit).

But, recalling what the bad-driving site was an analogy for, it doesn't seem like it would be appropriate for sex workers sharing reports of bad clients.

> it would be illegal for me to run a website which let sex workers anonymously check a particular client’s phone number to see if someone had previously reported them as violent

I always had a business idea that is very similar to this. It would be a good use for decentralized "blockchain based" (aka no mediator). It would be like LinkedIn, but instead of thumbs ups and high fives saying what an awesome boss you are and how your Excel skills are second to none, it would be the truth about working for/with certain individuals/companies.

You could even have a spinoff that talks about romantic partners. Who is a known cheater, abuser, etc.

I sincerely hope that you (or others) will not get around to implementing this idea.

That is the general feedback, but I'd be curious to hear why? It would only be successful with some kind of "proof" system. At least 5 witnesses would need to approve the claim, etc.

Decentralized judicial system

That's bonkers.

And arguably going to be overturned after a couple attempts at enforcement. Backpage was taken down with the law after making themselves a political target. If they hadn't been painted as supporting sex trafficking I think people would realize the law is unconstitutional.

It attempts to place prior restraint on speech.

Even worse - Backpage was taken down without the use of SESTA/FOSTA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com