I'm still trying to parse through these bills, and figure out what the law really says (as opposed to what the media say it says).

SESTA and FOSTA primarily modify an existing human trafficking statute (18 USC 1591), and an existing internet decency statue (47 USC 230).

I've pasted links to the language of the existing statutes and the bills below. Hopefully those links will be allowed. If not... google.

Various provisions of the existing and proposed law address those who own, manage, or operate an interactive computer services. They're pretty much screwed when it comes to anything that "promotes or facilitates" prostitution under FOSTA - regardless of whether the provider is trafficked or under age.  

But I'm focused here on how the laws may affect hobbyists' actions.  

One SESTA/FOSTA change is that it says ‘participation in a venture’ would now include, "knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating" a violation of the prohibition on advertising trafficked or underage providers under 18 USC 1591(a)(1).  

As a hobbyist, I've truly never seen any advertising that I had any reason to believe was for trafficked or underage providers.  

Certainly, my merely reading the ads for all providers doesn't "knowingly" "support" such ads.

Even it it did, mere "participation" itself isn't illegal under the statute. What is illegal is when someone: "benefits, financially or by receiving receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture... "  

Since websites receive advertising revenue from the providers, and through general ads, they can be said to be benefiting financially and receiving something of value for supporting the provider ads.

When I read ads for providers who are not trafficked and of age (at least to the best of my knowledge), there isn't much of an argument that I'm receiving something of value for "knowingly" "supporting" the advertising of underage and trafficked providers.

Arguably paid sites might be different, because you would be "supporting" them financially in exchange for access (something of value).  

Still, you'd still have to be knowingly supporting advertising of underage and trafficked providers for SESTA/FOSTA to kick in.
_____________________________________

Someone mentioned the Cloud Act in terms of problems with these websites moving offshore.

From my read of the Cloud Act, it says that American entities can be forced to give up materials that are stored overseas.  

However, if a company is formed in, for example, Venezuela, I don't see how the U.S. government has any direct access to it to hold it accountable under SESTA/FOSTA.  Many countries are less open than the U.S. about public disclosure of corporate management and ownership. Even if the owner is an American entity, it may never come to light.

 
The language of 18 USC 1591 is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1591  
The language of 47 USC 230 is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

The language of SESTA is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1693/text
The language of FOSTA is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865/text

-- Modified on 4/8/2018 4:01:01 AM