New Law - Game Changer for QBN?

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 8 Responses
  • GuyFawkes

    "A new law intended to curb sex trafficking threatens the future of the internet as we know it"…

    This week, President Trump signed into law a set of controversial bills intended to make it easier to cut down on illegal sex trafficking online. Both bills — the House bill known as FOSTA, the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, and the Senate bill, SESTA, the Stop Enabling Sex-Trafficking Act — have been hailed by advocates as a victory for sex trafficking victims.

    But the bills also poke a huge hole in a famous and longstanding “safe harbor” rule of the internet: Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Usually shorthanded as “Section 230” and generally seen as one of the most important pieces of internet legislation ever created, it holds that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” In other words, Section 230 has allowed the internet to thrive on user-generated content without holding platforms and ISPs responsible for whatever those users might create.

    But FOSTA-SESTA creates an exception to Section 230 that means website publishers would be responsible if third parties are found to be posting ads for prostitution — including consensual sex work — on their platforms. The goal of this is supposed to be that policing online prostitution rings gets easier. What FOSTA-SESTA has actually done, however, is create confusion and immediate repercussions among a range of internet sites as they grapple with the ruling’s sweeping language.”

    "including consensual sex work " what is this exactly? links to porn sites? links to nudes? COTD?

  • shapesalad-1

    so no sex ads on craigslist etc.

    • personals have already been removed.
      old information.
  • docpoz-2


  • kingsteven0

    so, you think beating off to COTD counts as sex work? and the pictures are advertisements?

    • heh, nice -5 downvotes in 3 minutes as the post below goes to +5. and the original article barely touches on the subject of pornography.kingsteven
  • shapesalad3

    The less porn on the internet the better. Porn is like sugar. Too artificial and highly concentrated, unnatural and thusly pretty much a drug - or at least the highly addictive catalyst for your brain to release dopamine.

    It used to be ok when it was just a pinup type photo from the 1940's. But these days it's heading towards dolls and VR. Too Intense...

    Just try not to look at porn for a week, a month, 3 months etc. see how long you can go.

    Addicted to it right?

    • Good thing is people are becoming aware of it, hence the growth in the noFlap movement.shapesalad
    • ^ You've been doing it all wrong if you've been flapping it.Maaku
    • Holy fuck are you not the biggest modern day Victorian pride on the planet or what? Internet wouldn’t exist without porn.monospaced
    • *prudemonospaced
    • Shape is correct. I'm not for censorship though, to each his own. I'm still fighting porn addiction, not sure if I can ever master it.M01XXX
    • I agree with shape, as well. the avalanche of porn available to young'uns is not a healthy thing.Gnash
    • as an adult you should be able to access whatever you like as long as it's mutually consensual.Gnash
    • the porn is too intense!!!kingsteven
    • lol @ avalanche of pornfuturefood
    • Agree porn is detrimental. Disagree that people need their own poor impulses regulated.cannonball1978
    • ^ yeah. This is getting to intrusive into people's personal lives. Especially these untrustworthy legal reprosenitviesmugwart
    • Snowflake is back.severian
    • grossdocpoz
    • I'm with Mono; anyone who prescribes to others how they manage their sexuality has got an additional behavioral problem.BustySaintClaire
    • Erotica is essential to life, bad porn is not, but the point is that everyone is built & wired different. Chacun son goût ... de gustibus non est disputandum.BustySaintClaire
    • Your logic is flawed. Banning things doesn't make them go away, it usually makes them more dangerous. You're not curbing demand, and you are not doing anythingzarkonite
    • to counter the means of production. You're just going to see more shady porn production and more exploitation as a result of this ban.zarkonite
    • "i don't like it, so no one should." got it.imbecile
    • What? You talking about sex trafficking or porn? Sounds like you're imposing your guilt on to others.pango
    • ...and if you're just releasing dopamine, you're doing it wrong.bulletfactory
    • well, if you wanted to watch 8hours+ of gangbangs etc back in the 1940's you'd have a hard time finding it. the point is, today there's too much.shapesalad
    • not saying ban it, just say there's too much, too accessible. I'd hate to be a teenage boy today, I'd be psychologically scared by the stuff out there...shapesalad
    • Cool story.pango
    • You're not forced to watch them you know that right? It is the temptation you don't like?pango
    • There are lots of men who are addicted to watching it or have issues with sex in relationships because of it. Look up death grip.Jaline
    • That being said, it shouldn't be banned. There needs to be more education on it as well as information about how to treat a partner with respect.Jaline
    • there are numerous women who justify their existence through childbirth or their husband's money. do we take measures to help this mental problem as well?imbecile
    • But the bill is about sex trafficking right?pango
    • What are you on about, imbecile? Those are different issues and they're all measured and evaluated in different ways.Jaline
    • blanket statements of mens' actions deserve blanket statements of women's. so is porn for women empowering or shameful in today's climate?imbecile
    • very important to know before continuing the conversation. she's empowered for performing but he's shamed for watching? hypocritical much?imbecile
    • sexism entitlement continues to break new heights!imbecile
    • If my memory is right, Elaine lost the bet...SimonFFM
    • ^ haha, simonGnash
  • utopian5

    What will the QBN PEDO's post now?

  • utopian21

    • That tongue ... translation for reptiles?BustySaintClaire
    • a masterclass in GIF usage. bravo.fadein11
    • there is something very disturbing about this to me when I visit QBN and I'll see it for a while. Yikes.Boz
    • this is me when talking to clients..RumperChunk
  • ayport6

    Legalizing and regulating prostitution is the most logical method to reduce sex trafficing and would make life much safer for prostitutes and for those who choose to make use of those services.

    It's a shame that prohibition seems to be the way Americans look at things, when it only does more harm than good.

    • lol at legalization. it needs to be left a private matter without the involvement of a third party.imbecile
    • Unless its alcohol, guns and pills. Those are ok.ArmandoEstrada
    • protecting sex workers from prosecution is the first step. giving women opportunities to do other things is the next.sarahfailin
    • Wouldn't legalizing it be the same thing as leaving it a private matter?yuekit
    • Sex workers are treated far worse than the customers when cases come to court. A constant cycle of arrest / custody / release does nothing to help the causes...face_melter
    • ...of why people end up in that position, not to mention the damage done to children of the (mostly) women who are prosecuted.face_melter
    • Make no mistake, the vast majority of people who do sex work are there as a last resort and are in desperate situations and they are punished for it.face_melter
    • Decriminalising and legalisation are the only ways to protect this involved.
      Source: I used to work for the Scottish Courts and dealt with cases like this.
    • Also note - cops are complete cunts in these situations.face_melter
  • mekk2

    lol only to keep this Stormy Daniels video out