Is There A Single Online Service Not Put At Risk By SESTA? (original) (raw)
from the the-risks-are-big dept
Earlier today, I wrote up a list of the many problems with SESTA and how it will be abused. Over and over again, we’ve seen defenders of the bill — almost none of whom have much, if any, experience in managing services on the internet — insist that the bill is “narrowly targeted” and wouldn’t create any problems at all for smaller internet services. However, with the way the bill is worded, that seems unlikely. As stated in the last post, by opening up sites to facing both lawsuits from state Attorneys General and civil lawsuits, SESTA puts almost any site that offers services to the public at risk. The problematic language in the bill is that this is the “standard” for liability:
“The term ‘participation in a venture’ means knowing conduct by an individual or entity, by any means, that assists, supports, or facilitates a violation….”
And that could apply to just about anyone offering services online. So, let’s dig into a few examples of companies and services potentially facing liability thanks to this nuclear bomb-sized hole in CDA 230.
- Airbnb: I did a whole post on this earlier. But there are multiple reports of how some people have used Airbnb for prostitution. I’m quite sure that Airbnb doesn’t want its users to use the platform in this way, but under SESTA, it will face criminal and civil penalties — and it has no way to prevent it. Prosecutors or civil litigants can easily point to these articles, and note that this demonstrates “knowledge” that Airbnb is “facilitating” sex trafficking, and, voila, no CDA 230 protections.
- Square: The popular payments processor that has made it easy for small businesses to accept credit cards… can also be used for prostitution/sex trafficking. Square can’t specifically watch over what each of its customers is selling, but clearly, it wouldn’t be difficult for prosecutors and/or civil litigants to argue that Square is knowingly facilitating trafficking by allowing traffickers to accept payments.
- Facebook: Obviously, tons of sex traffickers use Facebook to advertise their wares. There have been news stories about this. So clearly Facebook has “knowledge.” If it can’t magically eradicate it, it may also now have to deal with criminal and civil lawsuits lobbed its way.
- Snapchat: Last year there was a story of a teenager lured into a sex trafficking ring via Snapchat. So, clearly, lawyers might argue that Snapchat has “facilitated” sex trafficking.
- WordPress/Automattic: Automattic hosts a significant portion of the entire internet with its powerful WordPress.com platform. It’s pretty damn likely that at least some sex traffickers use WordPress to set up sites promoting what they’re offering. Thus, it’s “facilitating” sex trafficking.
- Wikipedia: You wouldn’t think of Wikipedia as being a hub for sex trafficking, but the site gets hit with spam all the time, and people trying to promote stuff via its webpages — and even when spam is edited out, it remains viewable in the history tabs. So, if a few links to trafficking advertisements show up, even if edited out, Wikipedia could face liability for facilitating such ads.
- Google Docs: Did sex traffickers use Google docs to create fliers or manage a spreadsheet? Is that “facilitating” sex trafficking? Well, we might not know until after a court goes through a long and involved process to figure it out.
- Cloudflare: Tons of websites use Cloudflare as a CDN to provide better uptime. What if one of them involves advertisements for sex trafficking. Is Cloudflare liable? After all, its CDN and anti-DDoS technology helped “facilitate” the service…
- Rackspace: Popular hosting company has millions of websites. If one of them hosts advertising for trafficking, it can be liable for facilitating sex trafficking.
- Amazon: Through its web services arm, Amazon hosts a large portion of the internet. Can you say for certain that Amazon S3 isn’t used somewhere by some sex trafficking parties?
- YouTube: These days, almost anything can be found in videos, and while YouTube has a system to “notify” the company of abuse, that may be used against the company, claiming “knowledge.” After all, in a case in Italy where Google execs were found criminally liable, the fact that some users clicked the “notify” button was used as evidence against the execs.
- Namecheap: Has Namecheap ever registered a domain that was then used by sex traffickers? Well, then it can be argued that it facilitated sex trafficking, and is not protected by CDA 230.
- Indeed: Basically any “job board” is at risk. There are stories of sex traffickers seeking victims via promises of summer jobs — and while these stories are highly dubious at best, similar accusations against online job boards under SESTA would be easy to make.
- Reddit: As an open forum, certainly sex trafficking gets discussed in some corners of the site. Is it possible that some have used it to help facilitate trafficking? Absolutely.
- Any site that has comments: And that includes sites like Techdirt. Want to get a site in trouble? Why not spam its comments with links to sex trafficking ads? Voila, you’ve now put those sites at risk of criminal and civil liability…
The point of this is that this list can go on and on and on. Almost any internet service can be used in some way to “facilitate” sex trafficking. And rather than recognizing that the problem is those engaging in sex trafficking, SESTA now lets everyone go after the tools they use. But nearly all those tools are mostly used for perfectly legitimate, non-illegal activity. Yet, under SESTA, all face massive liability and the potential for criminal charges.
Filed Under: cda 230, knowledge, section 230, sesta