SIESA: AKA, the "Anti-Porn" bill

[Repressio]

I'm all for banning it and getting rid of the pornographers themselves. Too many are involved in human trafficking, sexual abuse, and blackmail. Purge the whole industry.

Good news and bad news. The bad news is that this bill doesn’t ban pornography. The good news is that this bill doesn’t ban pornography.

Yeah, I noticed that. I'm responding more to the sentiment of the commentary that mm than on the bill itself.

[Kowani]

It says something about people that they think porn sites cannot verify whether or not someone has been raped in a video without it effectively banning porn. Do you not stop to think this may be indicative of something else?

The amount of extreme defensiveness in regard to a bill just trying to regulate pornography like a normal business is really saying a lot to me.

Normally, I would again (and to be clear, I support this bill.)
But there’s a lot of distrust towards politicians who try to regulate the internet, I think, because that’s…often not what ends up happening?
At least, not in any way that’s satisfactory to most people.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

Can you imagine the world of religious conservatives, Without porn and alcohol the world would be boring.

(Image)

If not rotting your brain and intoxicating your body is what you call fun, i'm the most boring person ever.
If you need alcohol to have fun it shows how shallow you are as a person

Okay, I respect your not watching porn and not drinking alcohol, likewise you should respect my watching porn and drinking alcohol. Yes to war against crime, no to censorship to porn !

[Stylan]

If not rotting your brain and intoxicating your body is what you call fun, i'm the most boring person ever.
If you need alcohol to have fun it shows how shallow you are as a person

Okay, I respect your not watching porn and not drinking alcohol, likewise you should respect my watching porn and drinking alcohol. Yes to war against crime, no to censorship to porn !

Not sure why some leftists, especially the Twitter types, feel the need to constantly defend shit like porn and "sex work" (prostitution) as if it's liberating and feminist. It isn't at all. Stop defending massive corporations that host child porn.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

Okay, I respect your not watching porn and not drinking alcohol, likewise you should respect my watching porn and drinking alcohol. Yes to war against crime, no to censorship to porn !

Not sure why some leftists, especially the Twitter types, feel the need to constantly defend shit like porn and "sex work" (prostitution) as if it's liberating and feminist. It isn't at all. Stop defending massive corporations that host child porn.

I never defended this, if you read what I have written correctly, I am a supporter of the war against crime. I think you should focus on fighting crime instead of blaming porn.

[Stylan]

Not sure why some leftists, especially the Twitter types, feel the need to constantly defend shit like porn and "sex work" (prostitution) as if it's liberating and feminist. It isn't at all. Stop defending massive corporations that host child porn.

I never defended this, if you read what I have written correctly, I am a supporter of the war against crime. I think you should focus on fighting crime instead of blaming porn.

Yeah I know you didn't defend that, I'm saying you are defending the corporation that does that. I'm not faulting you individually, I'm saying stop supporting massive companies.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

I never defended this, if you read what I have written correctly, I am a supporter of the war against crime. I think you should focus on fighting crime instead of blaming porn.

Yeah I know you didn't defend that, I'm saying you are defending the corporation that does that. I'm not faulting you individually, I'm saying stop supporting massive companies.

Whichever companies have committed these heinous crimes should be punished, but it would be wrong to shut down the porn industry completely, other companies should be able to do other things. Does the mindset that wants to ban porn entirely support the banning of Purity ball ceremonies that really disregard women's rights ? Purity prom ceremonies are truly a sexist ceremony that disregards women's rights and should be banned.

[Fahran]

Can you imagine the world of religious conservatives, Without porn and alcohol the world would be boring.

(Image)

One would hope people have hobbies that go beyond masturbating and boozing.

[Adamede]

Can you imagine the world of religious conservatives, Without porn and alcohol the world would be boring.

(Image)

One would hope people have hobbies that go beyond masturbating and boozing.

Depends on the sect of religious conservatives.

[Fahran]

When revenge porn/uploading without permission became illegal in the UK there was a charity (I forget which one) which said that it should be dealt with by the civil courts rather than the criminal courts.

Well, in this case, it's a pretty clear violation of both civil and criminal law as far as I can discern. This would put responsibility not only on the people uploading the content but on companies hosting the content as well.

Things like adultery and 'kiss and tell' (the latter of which is basically a verbal version of revenge porn) can be more damaging than revenge porn and yet they're not illegal at all.

While adultery can be extremely disruptive and should be sharply penalized in divorce settlements and have a strong social stigma attached to it, I'm skeptical that word of mouth is anywhere near as damaging as long-lasting pornographic content that may be seen by millions of people globally. Given that victims of revenge porn are still sometimes described as "porn stars" or "pornographic actresses" when, properly speaking, they aren't either of those things should give some insight into the problems with the industry on this subject and with society more broadly.

I don't share any sympathy for people who go to jail after betraying the trust of their partner but it still seems odd that the government will legislate on one and not the other. Since revenge porn is typically done by men and 'kiss and tell' is typically done by women then perhaps it could be seen as female empowerment that the latter isn't illegal?

Kiss and tell is done by women? Most of the people I hear bragging about things like that have been men, at least in my experience.

[Fahran]

Depends on the sect of religious conservatives.

Even fairly strict religious conservatives probably have interesting hobbies of one kind or another. The argument against banning alcohol or porn shouldn't be as weak as "banning these would make society boring." It should instead be that secular law does not have to neatly overlap with religious law and stamping out vices completely is not a good use of government time at the moment.

[Fahran]

Ah yes
Me, the fundamentalist atheist

Ko wants dominionism except Dawkins is a saint, insh-llah.

[Fahran]

Just say no. You're a freeman of the hand and the Americans can't invade fapganistan without your consent. Your rights are clearly outlined in the Magna Coomer.

We have to invade Fapganistan to protect our freedom. :^)

[Grenartia]

The amount of extreme defensiveness in regard to a bill just trying to regulate pornography like a normal business is really saying a lot to me.

Normally, I would again (and to be clear, I support this bill.)
But there’s a lot of distrust towards politicians who try to regulate the internet, I think, because that’s…often not what ends up happening?
At least, not in any way that’s satisfactory to most people.

Yeah, there was a lot of backlash to FOSTA/SESTA, which was intended to reduce sex trafficking, but it also severely negatively impacted sex workers who were voluntarily doing it, and in many cases, made their jobs less safe, by cracking down on websites they used to screen clients, among other things.

Just because a law has unambiguously good intentions, doesn't mean it will only do good things, especially when the people writing it have certain agendas.

[The Marlborough]

It says something about people that they think porn sites cannot verify whether or not someone has been raped in a video without it effectively banning porn. Do you not stop to think this may be indicative of something else?

The amount of extreme defensiveness in regard to a bill just trying to regulate pornography like a normal business is really saying a lot to me.

All of a sudden a lot of people have become free market libertarians.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Just because a law has unambiguously good intentions, doesn't mean it will only do good things, especially when the people writing it have certain agendas.

Pretty much this.

[Fahran]

Yeah, there was a lot of backlash to FOSTA/SESTA, which was intended to reduce sex trafficking, but it also severely negatively impacted sex workers who were voluntarily doing it, and in many cases, made their jobs less safe, by cracking down on websites they used to screen clients, among other things.

Just because a law has unambiguously good intentions, doesn't mean it will only do good things, especially when the people writing it have certain agendas.

Most regulations have social and economic impacts beyond what they intend. In this case, we can probably ease the burden on content creators substantially, though any regulation of the sex industry is bound to drive less professional and less successful people out of the market - either because they're producing niche content that breaks the law or because they do not have the resources to abide by the regulations. A sex worker who makes less than wait staff or entry level office workers do would probably having their labor more efficiently allocated in another field since they clearly don't have a lot of earning potential as a sex worker.

[Fahran]

Just because a law has unambiguously good intentions, doesn't mean it will only do good things, especially when the people writing it have certain agendas.

Pretty much this.

Again, that happens with almost every regulation on any industry. You have to balance disparate concerns. If actually working to ban revenge porn, rape snuff films, and child porn from legal websites means that amateur pornographic performers have to professionalize or change careers, I think it's still a net social good. We have some methods to work around unnecessary damage, but these regulations are far from puritanical or excessive.

If we're going to have legalized sex industries, they're going to probably need more regulation than most industries due to a history of chronic abuse.

[Kowani]

Ah yes
Me, the fundamentalist atheist

Ko wants dominionism except Dawkins is a saint, insh-llah.

...
i hate everything about this post
so, so much

[Fahran]

...
i hate everything about this post
so, so much

And Richard Dawkins did so love mankind that he gave his time to dispel their delusions.

[Kowani]

...
i hate everything about this post
so, so much

And Richard Dawkins did so love mankind that he gave his time to dispel their delusions.

i will come down to texas and steal your horse, as punishment for this, cha'ala

[Stylan]

The amount of extreme defensiveness in regard to a bill just trying to regulate pornography like a normal business is really saying a lot to me.

All of a sudden a lot of people have become free market libertarians.

Yeah. Gotta love when "leftists" shill for multinational corporations.

[Fahran]

i will come down to texas and steal your horse, as punishment for this, cha'ala

No me asustas, chico. Yo creo que Tejas todavia se ahorca los ladrones de caballos. Es una ley antigua y peculiar. Porque Tejas. Asi no robes un caballo aqui.

[Grenartia]

Yeah, there was a lot of backlash to FOSTA/SESTA, which was intended to reduce sex trafficking, but it also severely negatively impacted sex workers who were voluntarily doing it, and in many cases, made their jobs less safe, by cracking down on websites they used to screen clients, among other things.

Just because a law has unambiguously good intentions, doesn't mean it will only do good things, especially when the people writing it have certain agendas.

Most regulations have social and economic impacts beyond what they intend. In this case, we can probably ease the burden on content creators substantially, though any regulation of the sex industry is bound to drive less professional and less successful people out of the market - either because they're producing niche content that breaks the law

Or, in this case, also niche content that is legal.

or because they do not have the resources to abide by the regulations.

Which indicates poorly-designed regulations.

A sex worker who makes less than wait staff or entry level office workers do would probably having their labor more efficiently allocated in another field since they clearly don't have a lot of earning potential as a sex worker.

In that case, every sex worker who is just starting out (except for Belle Delphine, I guess) would fit that mold.

Anyways, a nice Twitter thread from @acvalens that explains a lot of the problems with this bill: https://twitter.com/acvalens/status/134 ... 06112?s=20

Key highlights:

1) The bill targets any online platform that "hosts and makes available to the general public" porn. This essentially ranges from OnlyFans to Twitter

2) The bill demands sites with porn institute strenuous verification and content moderation systems, such as a 24-hour platform hotline with a two-hour window to pull reported material. These strains will likely cause Twitter, OnlyFans, etc to dump porn over institute changes

4) Again: This creates a situation where legal liability and the cost involved in creating (borderline impossible) enforcement structures are so strenuous that most social media websites will simply remove NSFW content as opposed to micromanage it

5) A "covered platform" "hosts and makes available to the general public pornographic images," which are defined as "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" with sexually explicit conduct

This could be interpreted many different ways. It could, theoretically, introduce risk to sites that host pornographic illustrations, such as Patreon, Fur Affinity, and Pixiv. It could also introduce risk for sites and social media platforms that teens use for sexting.

(While that latter part might sound good at first glance, it also means that those services will generally choose to shut down rather than comb through each and every private message that has been sent and will be sent, just to be sure the kids aren't lewding each other. This not only affects kik, snapchat, Discord, etc., but also FB Messenger, traditional SMS services from cellular providers, e-mail providers, and more directly for everyone here: the telegram system. The first part isn't a very good thing, either, since it is just a mean-spirited and cynical jab at artists, who aren't even drawing real people. And, as any independent artist will tell you, NSFW commissions are basically their bread and butter. Your typical artist on Twitter, DeviantArt, etc., could not make rent or put food on their table without selling NSFW commissions, particularly to the furry community.)

SISEA would require platforms with pornographic material to verify all uploaders' identities, age, & provide a signed consent form from all individuals appearing in porn. This includes past & present adult material.
If you are a revenge porn victim and you want to make sure you do not appear on sites with NSFW material, you have to provide the federal government your personal information. It appears the database is all or nothing, shutting out sex workers from these protections

There are a few problems with these two measures:

1) Not all sex workers are documented. Instituting federal requirements introduces increased risk for migrant sex workers, who obviously do not want their personal information identified by the gov't

2) This introduces severe staffing costs for sites that already have strong, ethical DIY porn scenes, like Reddit. Suddenly, if Reddit still wants to host GoneWild, it needs to feverishly document every single uploader's PI. It's creating new problems w/o solving old ones

3) This introduces increased security risks for performers, who now have to trust (the few remaining) platforms will safeguard their personal info. Data breaches happen. Not every site stores its personal info in safe, encrypted ways. This puts sex workers at increased risk

(Oh, look, its that exact same objection I independently thought of earlier in this thread. Neat.)

4) The database forces sites to cross-check new uploads with the database before allowing new content. The database only covers individuals who "do not consent to the uploading to any covered platform of any pornographic images" they appear in. Not just some. All or nothing.

As I mentioned above, the database doesn't account for the fact that many sex workers and non-sex workers alike want *nonconsensual* material of themselves pulled. The database creates a binary. Either you're a victim or you're a sex worker. You never get to be both.

(The classic "whores can't be raped" trope rears its ugly head yet again, it seems.)

So in short, this bill is dripping in whorephobia, creates impossible expectations and standards, doesn't solve online sexual exploitation, and instead creates an incentive to pull adult material from the web altogether, either via NSFW content purges or indie sites closing down

(And, as we saw from the endless memes from Tumblr's own NSFW purge, there's never any issues with NSFW purges whatsoever.)

Long story short: this bill is only truly good for anti-porn prudes. Everyone else will suffer from its passage. This is fundamentally a new COPPA, but with pleasant wrapping hiding its insidious intent. We don't need to sacrifice nearly as much as this bill and its supporters want us to sacrifice to achieve its stated goals.

[Adamede]

Depends on the sect of religious conservatives.

Even fairly strict religious conservatives probably have interesting hobbies of one kind or another. The argument against banning alcohol or porn shouldn't be as weak as "banning these would make society boring." It should instead be that secular law does not have to neatly overlap with religious law and stamping out vices completely is not a good use of government time at the moment.

Depends on your definition of “interesting hobby”.