AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

What happens now with FOSTA?

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems in the case of shutting down Backpage it isn't just a case of prostitution, but minors/trafficking: ""Many of the ads published on Backpage depicted children who were victims of sex trafficking," according to the indictment, which alleges that Backpage's "official policy, when presented with an ad featuring the prostitution of a child, was to delete the particular words in the ad denoting the child's age and then publish a revised version of the ad.""

No sympathy here.
 
Seems in the case of shutting down Backpage it isn't just a case of prostitution, but minors/trafficking: ""Many of the ads published on Backpage depicted children who were victims of sex trafficking," according to the indictment, which alleges that Backpage's "official policy, when presented with an ad featuring the prostitution of a child, was to delete the particular words in the ad denoting the child's age and then publish a revised version of the ad.""

No sympathy here.
Yep. I just heard that the other day, if that is the sort of shit they were up to, put em under the jail. Worth noting though, others have been pointing out that FOSTA wasn't even needed to shut them down.
 
Seems in the case of shutting down Backpage it isn't just a case of prostitution, but minors/trafficking: ""Many of the ads published on Backpage depicted children who were victims of sex trafficking," according to the indictment, which alleges that Backpage's "official policy, when presented with an ad featuring the prostitution of a child, was to delete the particular words in the ad denoting the child's age and then publish a revised version of the ad.""

No sympathy here.

The thing about this, though, is that those ads being online allowed law enforcement to intervene and save trafficking victims. They were visible and reachable. Now, they're going to be even harder to save, and it'll be easier for traffickers to get more victims, because they're going to be on the streets without safer options.
 
The thing about this, though, is that those ads being online allowed law enforcement to intervene and save trafficking victims. They were visible and reachable. Now, they're going to be even harder to save, and it'll be easier for traffickers to get more victims, because they're going to be on the streets without safer options.

my friend in law enforcement said same. And he's been doing this for 30 years. Child sex trafficking flourished long before the internet also. This isn't going to help a lot. It might "appear " to help but it won't.
 
Seems in the case of shutting down Backpage it isn't just a case of prostitution, but minors/trafficking: ""Many of the ads published on Backpage depicted children who were victims of sex trafficking," according to the indictment, which alleges that Backpage's "official policy, when presented with an ad featuring the prostitution of a child, was to delete the particular words in the ad denoting the child's age and then publish a revised version of the ad.""

No sympathy here.
No sympathy is cool, but like others have said, new laws were unnecessary to shut it down. If backpage was used for drugs, the police would see this as a huge opportunity. They'd trap backpage and make them help catch users. They're not doing so because abusing women and children isn't as high up the priority list as crimes go. The drug war is where the money's at. Treating other private companies like criminals doesn't make sense either. It's all feigned care. Backpage has been around forever, known but underutilized by police. I wonder how they would explain that away? Surely no one thinks that sites like backpage were untouchable in their trafficking before FOSTA/SESTA, right?

If Trump is guilty of any of these sexual allegations and winds up going down for it, so be it. But the man has called for torture; he has called for an increase in executions. The sexual accusations are the least concerning thing to me; and annoyingly enough, that is exactly what the spotlight seemed to be on when this FOSTA wretchedness was winding its way through Congress.
I think people cared just as much before Trump was in office. Just, for a lot of people, that amount seems to be zero. It's one thing to see that rich people, like Trump, can go around grabbing whomever they want and getting away with it. Women knew that already. That's really nothing new. It's another to watch them be lifted up to the highest political seat we have. I'm not sure if I can argue that the rape accusations and flippant assault admissions are the worst things about Trump. His disdain for the poor, the brown, science, public education, sex work (though he participates) and drug users is all terrifying given the position his base has put him in. But, I wouldn't judge anyone for thinking it is the worst. As a woman and a mother of 3.5 girls, it's definitely a hard pill to swallow that this man was able not just to avoid legal action for his misbehavior but to hop into the White House. Really, the way people AREN'T responding to the things he's up to is the scary part. We have a President who's pooping all over the citizens and the constitution and half of those citizens are still cheering. FOSTA/SESTA is a frightening window into other politicians all too willing to do the same. Bernie yay'd it. Educated people yay'd this thing. They have to know it isn't fully constitutional. That is what people should be screaming, but I don't mind throwing in there the hypocritical nature of a man who uses sex work signing the dang thing.
 
I see your points, however, if it is true that it was "official policy" to simply switch words to hide the fact that minors were involved, or to cover up trafficking, then Backpage itself is as guilty as the traffickers themselves. While the authorities may catch some involved, I can't imagine they would catch nearly as many as would get away with these crimes through the use of advertising through Backpage. Authorities use fronts in order to catch drug peddlers all time, however, I hope we can all agree that having a front where traffickers offer women who are in some cases enslaved, or children is something quite different, Keeping Backpage open so to catch a portion of the criminals simply isn't justified. I am all for anyone of adult age offering whatever they want to offer, however, if the charges were true, then the site was a criminal organization, and thus should be shuttered. I'd be all in favor of a like kind site be up and running from off shore somewhere, but run by people who can see the difference between free choice, and trafficking.

As an aside, I trust what the government says not one bit, so I'd like to see the evidence that the principals of the site did actually make the switches they are alleged to have. Otherwise the statements above could easily be more of the governments fake news. It's happened before.
 
I hope we can all agree that having a front where traffickers offer women who are in some cases enslaved, or children is something quite different, Keeping Backpage open so to catch a portion of the criminals simply isn't justified.
Why isn't it justified? Catching criminals means finding the victims. If they can create filters to alert them to an inappropriate age, that alert could be sent directly to the police. Why not use it? Victims are losing online visibility that can and has been used by police to save them. Why? Who does this benefit? Sure, the people involved with Backpage's endangering practices should be held accountable. But, it doesn't look like they're being charged for their involvement in trafficking so far. That's a sign that the authorities aren't planning to dig far enough to save anyone. If someone I loved was missing, I'd be scouring the internet looking for something that I could take to the police... anything. SESTA/FOSTA and taking down BP completely make those bread crumbs a lot harder to find.
 
I think people cared just as much before Trump was in office. Just, for a lot of people, that amount seems to be zero. It's one thing to see that rich people, like Trump, can go around grabbing whomever they want and getting away with it. Women knew that already. That's really nothing new. It's another to watch them be lifted up to the highest political seat we have. I'm not sure if I can argue that the rape accusations and flippant assault admissions are the worst things about Trump. His disdain for the poor, the brown, science, public education, sex work (though he participates) and drug users is all terrifying given the position his base has put him in. But, I wouldn't judge anyone for thinking it is the worst. As a woman and a mother of 3.5 girls, it's definitely a hard pill to swallow that this man was able not just to avoid legal action for his misbehavior but to hop into the White House. Really, the way people AREN'T responding to the things he's up to is the scary part. We have a President who's pooping all over the citizens and the constitution and half of those citizens are still cheering. FOSTA/SESTA is a frightening window into other politicians all too willing to do the same. Bernie yay'd it. Educated people yay'd this thing. They have to know it isn't fully constitutional. That is what people should be screaming, but I don't mind throwing in there the hypocritical nature of a man who uses sex work signing the dang thing.
"Women knew that already."

Interesting that you say that. In some of the more right-leaning/pro-Trump places I interact on the internet, the fact that rich people can go around doing such things and get away with it seems to be driving (and in some cases, the sole) factor for a lot of women's support for him.
Ben Swann was promptly taken off the air and had his social media shut down for this report...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/LRYEVJs8tds/

It was a real wtf??? report to say the least. Shutting him down like that may not have been the best approach, unless convincing everyone something is being covered up was the goal.

I started looking into this, uncertain of what to believe.
https://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504881478/lives-are-at-risk-clinton-warns-over-fake-news-pizzagate
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article119065843.html
http://time.com/4590255/pizzagate-fake-news-what-to-know/
https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com...ces-of-pizza-gate-are-real-at-comet-ping-pong
https://www.usnews.com/news/nationa...1-14/avoid-these-fake-news-sites-at-all-costs
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/...pizzeria-is-not-a-child-trafficking-site.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ews-story-which-makes-us-really-sad/95086624/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...zzagate/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.55dc0502f3ef
http://fortune.com/2016/11/22/comet-ping-pong-hillary-clinton-fake-news/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-fake-news-guide-2016-story.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ty-monica-crowley_us_58542a74e4b08debb788afc4
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-23/a-fake-pizzagate-conspiracy-for-our-fevered-age
http://time.com/4594988/pizzagate-gunman-comet-ping-pong-regret/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pizzagate-conspiracy-theories-michael-flynn-junior-1.3883406
https://www.salon.com/2016/12/09/a-...-news-and-trust-him-more-than-real-news-poll/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ve-crazy-wrong-things/?utm_term=.7a42d487c4e1
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...ing-go-dark-even-as-prosecution-moves-forward
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael-flynn-conspiracy-pizzeria-trump-232227
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mike-flynn-jr-forced-trump-transition-amid-fake/story?id=44018995
"Completely false...fake news...conspiracy theory...debunked...dangerous consequences...lives at risk...hyperpartisan and distorted...insane and fabricated...witchhunt...no evidence...hoax...feverish...not "real" news...crazy...outrageous...fictitious..." No shortage of men or women pushing the "move along, nothing to see here" line.

I don't want gullible people charging into restaurants on vigilante missions, nor do I want some hysteria like the Satanic Panic from a few decades ago, but even after removing the more absurd elements and accusations, it is starting to look more and more like something really fucky is afoot, and there are those who will quite happily cover it up.

Ben Swann is back (sorta suprised he hasn't been suicided yet, but I guess that would have really looked bad). I highly recommend following him for a different take on things. He touches on Backpage in this segment.



http://truthinmedia.com
 
As an aside, I trust what the government says not one bit, so I'd like to see the evidence that the principals of the site did actually make the switches they are alleged to have. Otherwise the statements above could easily be more of the governments fake news. It's happened before.
Amen.

Makes the following story all the more disturbing, which is in keeping with the whole FOSTA mentality.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...oned-fact-checkers-to-approve-online-content/
Honestly, wtf happened to Democrats?
 
Seems in the case of shutting down Backpage it isn't just a case of prostitution, but minors/trafficking: ""Many of the ads published on Backpage depicted children who were victims of sex trafficking," according to the indictment, which alleges that Backpage's "official policy, when presented with an ad featuring the prostitution of a child, was to delete the particular words in the ad denoting the child's age and then publish a revised version of the ad.""

No sympathy here.

The Indictments were released for Backpage yesterday. There are 93 indictments on money laundering and facilitating prostitution and 0 Trafficking charges. It does mention 17 victims of trafficking, but again- ZERO charges for trafficking.
 
The Indictments were released for Backpage yesterday. There are 93 indictments on money laundering and facilitating prostitution and 0 Trafficking charges. It does mention 17 victims of trafficking, but again- ZERO charges for trafficking.

I have a pretty good idea that if the government could, it would charge them for trafficking. However, perhaps scrubbing words that indicate someone is a minor is not something they can use to charge BackPage for trafficking. However, if they scrub words so minors can be bought for sex so that company can turn a profit, then regardless of what they can be charged with, they are at least complicit in trafficking. They probably look at the crimes, and what the most clear path to a conviction would be. Al Capone did not go away for murder/extortion/prostitution or bootlegging, but for tax evasion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HiGirlsRHot
Also, IMHO, it's pretty hard to make a case that everyone in a Colombian studio gangbang on CB signed up versus working at a McDonald's. The guys are rarely smiling and I don't think I would be after cumming 15 times per shift. If you're paying people to perform live sex acts with someone, it's pretty close to the p word, moreso than regular porn.

CB should get ahead of the inevitable by cutting groups immediately and MFC should go further by banning studios, especially in Colombia, Kazakstan, Romania and dear old Mother Russia. Better to cut loses now than jeopardize the whole operation.

That's a rather ignorant pontification. Obviously you have no inkling about the depth and/or origins of the industry. Do you wear a paper hat at the local Fry-o-lator? Why would you assume those in other locales would desire such a job? The monthly minimum wage in Colombia, as I type, is $270.14 and Romania $393.08; that is what McDonalds pays. A below average cam model in Romania will typically earn about $800/month. Cams offers a potentially lucrative job with financial rewards far in excess of the norm for the country. If a cam site was so short-sighted to ban Romania many sites would be ghost towns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finebrush
No as far as I have understood it Choice Bank has liquidity issues and that is the reason for that mess.

I put this in the FCP thread, but I wouldn't be so sure that FOSTA/SESTA isn't at least partially to blame. It is "forced" liquidity issues. Their balance sheet is fine. They have been shut down by regulators. The implication is that may be from MasterCard suspending business with them due to that law.

https://domaingang.com/domain-news/...ard-issuer-in-liquidity-constrained-position/
 
FOSTA seems like legislation that is a gateway to shutting down any online activity that would be deemed as illegal if done in the US. The focus is on sexual exploitation and trade. The aim is those who profit from this exploitation.

As I understand it those who advertise or promote such a web site can be held civilly responsible i.e. they can be sued for profiting from that illegal activity even if the activity occurs elsewhere.
Most people tend to think sex sites will either be over moderated or alternatively not moderated at all. Moderated sites will have to check all content before sharing with US customers. Any US citizens or businesses caught profiting from an act of sexual exploitation or trade (US law) risk being sued.

It will make US prostitution within the US riskier and create chaos within the sex industry for a short time.

Those in the sex industry will have to check every business they interact with for how they will respond i.e. are they in or out when it comes to the sex industry; they won't be able to have it both ways.
If they are in, then they will either ask for proof that the content being made is legal or alternatively not look at the content that they profit from.
A payment processor for instance might remove any questions about sex work and process all payments as legal. Another option would be to process payments only from legal sites and content providers. Extra costs/ risks in either option can be passed onto all customers. Thirdly they may opt out of any trade with the sex industry.
 
I put this in the FCP thread, but I wouldn't be so sure that FOSTA/SESTA isn't at least partially to blame. It is "forced" liquidity issues. Their balance sheet is fine. They have been shut down by regulators. The implication is that may be from MasterCard suspending business with them due to that law.

https://domaingang.com/domain-news/...ard-issuer-in-liquidity-constrained-position/
MasterCard supported FOSTA/SESTA.
Https://wagner.house.gov/media-cent...kes-major-step-forward-in-fight-to-end-online
 
The sex industry will work it out, they are a clever, creative group. Personally FOSTA does much more harm to industries relying on big data. Online porn data is used in some rather unusual ways for social research.... Heavy interference changes the results, shifting them to places that can't be studied.
The privacy issues relating to social media are much the same, but that is another story.

For government they need to decide, do you want to know or do you want to try to take control of it. The answer is always related to the practical and to which option is the greater good?
 
The sex industry will work it out, they are a clever, creative group. Personally FOSTA does much more harm to industries relying on big data. Online porn data is used in some rather unusual ways for social research.... Heavy interference changes the results, shifting them to places that can't be studied.
The privacy issues relating to social media are much the same, but that is another story.

For government they need to decide, do you want to know or do you want to try to take control of it. The answer is always related to the practical and to which option is the greater good?

You know, I'm not totally anti-government. But as far as the practical aspect, politicians will weigh that far above the greater good. As far as the sex industry as a group I am sure you are right. That doesn't negate the possibility of many individuals being hurt in the process of working it out. Some laws are just plain and simple good politics and bad ideas. Even if it is determined to be unconstitutional or reversed at a later time it will have real impacts on people in the present. Hopefully those impacts can be minimal.
 
"Nothing will change until we change the way money works." ~ Michael Ruppert
 
"Nothing will change until we change the way money works." ~ Michael Ruppert

Maybe it's a bit outside of the topic. The quote really should have just said "Nothing will change." If you could change how money works it would only be replaced by another currency of power. Or a better quote could be "Nothing will change until we change human nature." The only reason money corrupts is because we allow it. Sorry to get a little philosophical about it :)
 
That doesn't negate the possibility of many individuals being hurt in the process of working it out.
SESTA is just another attempt to manage prostitution due to previous model failures that ban it, will let actual sex workers speak on that one: pay particular attention to what is said about when sex workers are exploited, and comparisons with other types of work.

FOSTA is more an extension on the same logic. It will cause similar interference to sex content providers, with similar results for the sex workers providing that content. Not much practical use for the goal they intended with that legislation in the end. It will hurt many people, few of those the intended target.

It isn't all negative: Personalized sites providing sale of content will boom if they can secure good payment processors. Perhaps larger sites can play a larger role in redirecting customers to legal content providers, and selling their software to smaller players? Not all change is a bad thing for everyone.
 
Since the two became melded into one law it has become a bigger problem. I am not sure what you mean @Ambers Troll, I basically agree with you. But prostitution is a separate issue from this although the law now lumps it in the same class. In fact the law lumps many free speech categories into the same class as human trafficking. I imagine you are also right that if things stand this way some one will find a way to profit from it. I am just not sure that is worth the censorship and the people who might be hurt in the process of finding out the extent that this law could reach.
 
@BufordT the aim of the laws is about sexual exploitation and to stop anyone profiting from it. You do need the 2, otherwise you risk importing it as content rather than directly allowing those who profit from it to continue to profit and to promote such activities as say sex tourism. The aim is to cut the market for inappropriate sexual content and to stop anyone in the US from profiting from what would otherwise be illegal in the US. Very much a conservative simplistic mindset, but easy enough to understand.

Content providers will be fine for vanilla activities, the riskier content will be harder to find and promote. If you have a US business and want to sell your penis enlargement kit, new toy, sex pill, sex game, or wives looking for anonymous sex on a content site, you will need to check that the content on that site doesn't promote any kind of sex trafficking.

All that tricked, groping, sexploitation style content; or anything too violent, will be difficult to get other than from the 'exploited' model herself. I imagine this type of content will become much more expensive and rarer to find as sites currently exist: Depending on US advertising revenue and service providers linked to that site.
Many women will pay much more for their porn or spend longer finding it, did you know that porn violence/ exploitation against women is more popular for women viewers than men?
 
So maybe I don't understand your position. You think this a good thing? I would actually like to see your reference to women finding violence and exploitation more popular than men. Even if it is true statistics can be made to prove almost any point. I still am not disagreeing with you but I think this is not something you just can say ok, tomorrow will be better.
 
I would actually like to see your reference to women finding violence and exploitation more popular than men.
this link will put you on the right path to the reference, it is based on google searches by women worldwide.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/g...t-women-is-more-popular-among-women-than-men/
This type of metadata will be much harder to collect post FOSTA when socially unacceptable searches lead nowhere or to the wrong places. This is what I dislike most about such laws, I'd like to know what drives socially unacceptable to hide in the dark web rather than force harmless acts to hide there.

So maybe I don't understand your position. You think this a good thing?
My point is it comes from bad assumptions, that the legislation long term will be pretty much useless for what it sets out to achieve. I understand its point, but sex workers don't think it will work and may even make it riskier for them. I would assume the risks to them would be similar to the Nordic Model of chasing the customer/ reducing business.
The FOSTA component is far more interesting, short term pain to the sex industry for not much result in how it works. Customers like myself may find it more expensive and there should be less access to more interesting free content.
For content providers it will rush what is already slowly happening, more self produced and one on one traded content. Porn sites better move fast to decide on their moderation habits if they want to remain a 3rd party in the game connecting content providers to services/ customer searches for that content.

The vanilla sex industry, such as camming should be fine after the cowards afraid of the industry but wanting to profit from it run away. What is sad is that so much of the extreme content will be inaccessible to those with an interest in it to discover. So not a good thing.
 
Somewhat serious question, followed by a not so serious one.
One thing of some concern to models may be sexual exploitation of customers by models. Would that apply to this law?

Will all models wanting to consistently rip off their customers now require some form of written FINDOM defense before a site will take them on?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.