Is Porn Becoming a Monopoly?
gen.medium.com
gen.medium.com
So what happens if a law like FOSTA-SESTA comes along and threatens legal penalties for cloud providers like AWS who knowingly host porn? Wouldn't that change "the bare minimum legal requirements"? And then later, the US, Canada, EU, and other countries sign a treaty to regularize "sex trafficking" laws and Canadian payment processors drop OF and similar?
Yes, of course some of them will go further offshore, into the fringes of the internet, to find hosting, but it will still hurt them, just like the way torrent sites have been hurt by similar moves? https://torrentfreak.com/googles-new-downranking-hits-pirate...
> This is an issue bigger than Patreon (In the climate of FOSTA/SESTA) It probably goes beyond even the payment processors. it’s a world wide, online AND in person crack down on freedom of expression, on women, on marginalised people, on sex and sex work, on non conventional forms of labour that counter the status quo: the domination of corporations and the patriarchy. On dissent. (Taken from the blog post mentioned because it provides a bit more context than the quote on the linked site; emphasis not mine)
How is this a crackdown on either women or freedom of expression? Isn't every sex worker equally affected? Not like Patreon still shows penises on their platform. Neither is any company forced to allow arbitrary personal expression on their platform if I understood it correctly. Freedom of expression only protects you from the government, like freedom of speech, no?
If anyone intends to respond to this comment please consider that I'm genuinely asking this. I really want to understand.
No. In the US, the first amendment to the US Constitution only applies to the government. "Freedom of speech" is a concept with general applicability. People opposed to freedom of speech often intentionally conflate the two but they really are separate things. There may be a genuine argument about what any particular actor should do w/r/t speech - should they adopt a permissive, "freedom of speech" attitude, should they restrict speech, etc. But "freedom of speech only applies to the government" is not a genuine argument, because it's not an argument at all, it's a conclusory statement (and false).