I think providers or clients concerned about being targeted more easily by LE through this are probably misplacing their concerns. This makes it easier for the government to go after websites - that's where the action will be. So the websites will be more proactive in trying to take down information sharing that is advertising or seems like advertising. It's going to be about equally as difficult as it was before to go after individual providers. As far as advertisements or websites or Twitter accounts, the worst I see basically anyone facing is having it simply taken down. Providers, I don't think you're any more likely to get arrested.
Some websites that have ads will scrub them as much as they can. Others will pop up to fill the void, I strongly suspect. They'll get sued. And either the law will be held unconstitutional, at which point everything will return to normal, or it won't and the scrubbing will get more vigorous everywhere. Unfortunately as far as negative repercussions go, I think this is going to fall harder on providers than clients. It'll be harder for providers to let it be known when and where they're available, making it harder to get consistent, reliable business. That's not as big of a deal for clients if you're only seeking out a meeting, say, once every month or two. That unfortunately will create the predicament for providers of having to decide whether to get more lax on screening to facilitate more business but also will make it more dangerous for them (might also lead to prices lowering in order to attract business in a world where advertising is harder). That safety point to me is the biggest problem with the bill behind only the free speech slippery slope in allowing the government to go after websites for what other people are saying on them. The more the industry goes in the dark, the more dangerous it becomes and the harder it is to spot dark figures. The biggest thing I can recommend to everyone is to rely on private networks. Ladies, building networks among yourselves to warn about sketchy characters I think is going to be more of an imperative moving forward. It also can help for business. I plan on e-mailing some providers I enjoyed seeing to let them know to feel free to e-mail me when they're in town and that if they have any friends in the same boat, they're welcome to pass along my e-mail address to them as well. That sort of private word of mouth among people who are trusted (that trust being very important) can also help to navigate the new situation. Stay safe, everybody.
The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed legislation to make it easier to penalize operators of websites that facilitate online sex trafficking, chipping away at a bedrock legal shield for the technology industry.
The bill’s passage marks one of the most concrete actions in recent years from the U.S. Congress to tighten regulation of internet firms, which have drawn heavy scrutiny from lawmakers in both parties over the past year due to an array of concerns regarding the size and influence of their platforms.
The House passed the measure 388-25. It still needs to pass the U.S. Senate, where similar legislation has already gained substantial support, and then be signed by President Donald Trump before it can become law.
Speaker Paul Ryan, in a statement before the vote, said the bill would help “put an end to modern-day slavery here in the United States.”
Several major internet companies, including Alphabet Inc’s Google and Facebook Inc, had been reluctant to support any congressional effort to dent what is known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a decades-old law that protects them from liability for the activities of their users.
But facing political pressure, the internet industry slowly warmed to a proposal that gained traction in the Senate last year, and eventually endorsed it after it gained sizeable bipartisan support.
Republican Senator Rob Portman, a chief architect of the Senate proposal, said in a statement he supported the House’s similar version and called on the Senate to quickly pass it.
The legislation is a result of years of law-enforcement lobbying for a crackdown on the online classified site backpage.com, which is used for sex advertising.
It would make it easier for states and sex-trafficking victims to sue social media networks, advertisers and others that fail to keep exploitative material off their platforms.
Some critics warned that the House measure would weaken Section 230 in a way that would only serve to further help established internet giants, who possess larger resources to police their content, and not adequately address the problem.
“This bill will only prop up the entrenched players who are rapidly losing the public’s trust,” Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, an original author of Section 230, said. “The failure to understand the technological side effects of this bill - specifically that it will become harder to expose sex-traffickers, while hamstringing innovation - will be something that this Congress will regret.”
Must be nice to never worry about money and living on daddy's money! Why they can't leave my life & body alone. #sexworkiswork #escort #GFE I am an adult and I can take decisions on my own! #mybodymychoice 🤬 #SESTA #FOSTA 🤬
Totally agree ...I don't like them ,never have,never will.
United States of America.... land of the free?
You can do it your own way.... if it's done just how I say!
Howabout you politicians stay the fuck outta ppls business. A country run by out of touch, silver spoon fucks. Anything I do only affects myself in any negative manner. I don't like to post on anything political, but it's getting old. Forced to wear seatbelts, and helmets. But if you crash....you die! It affects you. Wearing your seatbelt isn't going to ensure safety for anyone other than you. Shouldn't that be your choice?
You buy a home....it has an HOA. It's your house, but grass has to be kept to their standards. Any remodeling has to be approved by them. What you can do is limited by them....down to the color of your front door or style of mailbox. I'm buying the house.... but I can't make it to my liking without approval from someone who doesn't own the structure, the land, and doesn't make the payment.
Simple examples, but still valid in context. Human trafficking does exist, but this is a blanket approach.... as are a majority of the dumbass things they come up with. I have never met a lady who was doing this under duress. Ah shit.....I could go on and on about this. Pisses me off...
promises was there would be no new regulation unless two regulations were eliminated. So which two regulations were eliminated. They have no fucking right interfering in our lives but like the war on drugs they are using sex trafficking as a way on putting pressure on civil rights and taking away our liberties. Yet the righties on here all support Trump and the government taking away our freedom. No point in writing your representative to protest this law because they will not listen or respond.
Right now the current ratio for regulations is 22 pages of regulations being undone for every 1 page being created. You can hate Trump all you want for other issues, but he has actually over performed where it comes to eliminating regulations.
This is hardly a left-right issue. Liberal soccer moms are a bigger enemy to P4P than the religious right.
And there are 76 communists in the State Department.
Liberal soccer moms have the most to lose. Their generally vapid personalities drive their husbands to seek company elsewhere.
Form an unholy alliance against us. The thing is, is the hypocrisy. Many of the soccer moms are cheating, the misanthropic ladies hate themselves and everyone, and the religious ultra conservatives think they speak for God. Fuck them all! I won't even include our so-called representatives in government...they have the audacity to tell us to do as I say, not as I do. Lying sacks of shit are a major component in why the hobby thrives in DC. Trump isn't to blame here...the system was beyond corrupt and dishonest long before he arrived on the scene.
Yup, California and New York are solidly liberal. In California democrats run against democrats. Republicans can't get past the primaries. Yet California hasn't legalized prostitution. No liberal majority area has legalized prostitution.
I had little problem finding escorts before the World Wide Web. It’s no surprise that this overwhelmingly passed, the government has been after BP for a long time now. Politicians, regardless of party lines will not publicly support prostitution, ESPECIALLY in the mists of the #metoo movement right now. Everyone is hyper focused on how women are being treated right now.
With all the attention recently focused on tech monopolies, foreign influences in the last election, murders taking place on Facebook live, #metoo, jihadists recruiting on social platforms etc, its silly to think that would never be an evolution regarding the internet and how it’s regulated. However, I still know people sharing copyright protected content on p2p networks, all these years after piracy laws were passed, and I have smoked cannabis since 1988 and it is also illegal. I have never had much problem finding it? Other than possibly having to adapt to changes in how I find escorts in the future, this law will not affect prostitution overall IMO.
Will this law affect this site even though it has nothing to do with trafficking? Or will reviews just have to stop being explicit and provider ads change terminology? Or will it actually end up shutting TER down?
Nope it won't ter is in the netherlands and not subject to U.S. law
Don't be so sure. The site is hosted outside the US, but most of users are in the US and are subject to US based rules, regs, and laws.
.
With net neutrality regs trashed last month, ISP's and other providers can now selectively block content from their users, or charge higher prices to access selected content whenever they want. .
.
That means governments can put presure on the carriers to block or censor sites like TER. Or they can incent/force the carriers to inform them of who is accessing sites that they deem as "supporting trafficking".
.
This is really about suprerssing the 1st admendment. And there is no NRA-like political body in the US to guard that amendment like the NRA "guards" the 2nd amendment, becuause no one ever imagiend it would be necessary.
.
Note: Leave your pro- and anti- NRA comments for some other thread, please. I'm not interested.
Wrong on a few counts. You mentioned NRA defending the 2nd Amendment, and lamented no organization doesnsame for the 1st. I’ve left the link to an organization called American Civil Liberties Union.
To your first point, the repeal of NN reduced the US government’s ability to interfere with and pressure ISPs.
NN regulation dealt with Federal Communication Commission oversight of communications services. As far as privacy intrusion issues, that would more likely be done by DOJ and State Attorneys General domestic, the NSA internationally, and ISP/web based companies themselves (see Facebook granting data mining access to Organizing For America and Cambridge Analytica in a quid quo pro for OFA and QA using that mined data to pay Facebook for targeted ads.
The first w in www is world. Congress can't control the whole world. Smart companies like TER already locate beyond the reach of our puritanical laws. Dumb ones that are subject to US jurisdiction are coveted by existing laws if they are truly involved in holding women (or men) against their will.
China, that bastion of freedom, democracy, free and open expression, recognition of individual rights, etc., suppresses access to many websites. Ooops. China is a Communist dictatorship. My bad.
The first w in www is world. Congress can't control the whole world. Smart companies like TER already locate beyond the reach of our puritanical laws. Dumb ones that are subject to US jurisdiction are coveted by existing laws if they are truly involved in holding women (or men) against their will.
It doesn’t matter where it’s hosted. Mueller just indicted Russian hackers, and aggressive prosecutors can do the same to overseas web companies. Look at the pending extradition of the guy who founded Torrent.
And civil litigation can tie up the money coming from US customers.
So now that BP has become a total wasteland of terrible information, does anyone have any other go to classified sites? I see that liv3esc0rtr3vi3ws still links here which is good, but it's definitely hard to find anything in less metropolitan area.
Anyone have any good alternatives to BP that the use and supplement with TER?
Ive had some luck with cityvibe. I do advertise on there, ter, eros and p411, and maybe im an anomoly but bp is still where the bulk of my traffic comes from.
I like city vibe. I place ads there and on slixa.
Same fucken SHIT! Different YEAR!!
Same FUCKEN politicians pushing the bill are the highest paying CLIENTS... if the world only REALLY knew who was BCD with ladies.
FUCKEN FUCKERS! They need to hunt down PIMPS not independent ladies, it's the ladies that are being PIMPED out that need the help.
Amen! Agreed, agreed, agreed.
This is very upsetting and what makes it even worse is how many celebrities are backing it.
Many people don't think for themselves or look into information that is presented to them. They just accept whatever they hear as the truth.
If they really cared about sex trafficking their focus wouldn't be on ad sites. I'm honestly pretty outraged by this whole thing. This is how I support myself and the government is always trying to find a way to make it harder and less safe
Until they find a way to get their cut off your labor....
Then they'll be all for it!
Agree with you ...they should be focusing on banning "war gun" (assault weapons) and reduce mass murder. But then again most of them are owned by the NRA and its monetary contribution anyway.
Please call your local reps and help fight this counterproductive bill! It's ironic that Paul Ryan states this bill will put an end to modern-day slavery. If anything HB1865 or FOSTA will feed modern-day slavery since it is counterproductive and cuts many resources for sex workers & trafficking victims alike. More policing and criminalization has never been the answer in harm reduction.
Agree ....elections coming up later this year too,we can start voting them out.
As Ron Wyden says, now you will drive it further underground. Not that they care, but they need to watch Toni Mac on Ted Talks.
So is this the end for TER? I've found it to be a useful resource for finding reliable, friendly escorts who definitely aren't sex trafficked and love what they do. I'd hate to see this place have to shut down because politicians believe websites like this one encourage trafficking.
The statute says, in part: "Whoever uses or operates a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce or attempts to do so with the intent to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both." This raises the question of whether, under the statute, a TER reviewer can be construed as a user of a means of commerce who intends to promote the prostitution of the individual who is reviewed (at least where the review is positive). That would obviously be chilling. I'm unclear about what things constitute a "means of commerce" under the statute, but I can see how, as a business, TER might be understood in these terms. It would be helpful if some people with the legal expertise could weigh in on the various issues raised in this thread.
Trump lawyers just a few weeks ago paid a hooker $130,000 to disappear - guess he is above the law.
It was on 'almost' every news media and press so - not fake news.
They won’t be able to go after individual users on a site like TER. There are simply too many of them. It would be a losing proposition.
Lets vote them out.
Times are changing again. We all need to change with it.
Eden
Just because there is s law, doesn’t mean there is resources to go after everyone or it will be enforced. Escort agencies working out of a brick and mortar location, MPs etc are low hanging fruit and easier to set op a sting on. I highly doubt a single, mature, independent escort is going to be the focus.
There may be regulations on some web sites, but specifically BP was the target last year. I never had a problem finding escorts before all of this. There will always be a way for two consenting adults to hook up. I doubt that a law enforcement agency Is going to waste their time and resources to shut down every independent escorts webpage. Never going to happen. We already have so many laws on the books that are not enforced at all, that to think that just because this law is passed somehow everything ends? LOL. It may change as we know it, but it isn’t going to end.
That's why you need to be smart about your vote.This is a guy that had just recently had his lawyers paid a hooker a $130,000 to disappear.
They are just using the word "trafficking " as a disguise ,the republicans have no regard for women's rights and am sure most of you ladies know that.
All kind of idiots are out there with assault rifles (war gun) and no one is safe anywhere in America ,schools ,theaters,malls,concerts, you name it....and yet they have time to focus on trying to stop people from fucking.
My advice to you - do you own research ,don't listen to the dumb trumpers on this site.
You do know that it was kamala harris (a democrat) who started this whole war on backpage right?
Dont be fooled, the democrats are NOT on our side. They are full of feminazis who hate sex workers.
If you want to join a party that supports sex workers rights, join the libertarians, when it comes to prostitution the democrats are just as bad as the republicans, its the one thing they can agree on.
I wish the party would progress to give us a viable option for President. Gary Johnson was not it.
President Trump picked Sessions, ruining my chances for ever voting conservative again.
I don't like Sessions either, but if Sessions is your only reason to not EVER vote conservative again, wouldn't either Holder or Lynch be equal reasons to not EVER vote liberal again?
As for the Libertarians, I too identify with them more than either the Reps or the Dems, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for Gary Johnson either, nor have I been able to get behind any of the candidates for POTUS that the Libertarians have ever offered us.
You may be right about that.
I agree.
You do know that it was kamala harris (a democrat) who started this whole war on backpage right?
Dont be fooled, the democrats are NOT on our side. They are full of feminazis who hate sex workers.
If you want to join a party that supports sex workers rights, join the libertarians, when it comes to prostitution the democrats are just as bad as the republicans, its the one thing they can agree on.
Sorry ignorant question alert:
Would content posted prior to the approval of the legislation be in violation or would it only be enforceable on content created post approval?
From "The Verge", a respected tech website:
"Shortly before the House vote, the Department of Justice sent a letter to the bill’s sponsors raising concern that the retroactive measures in FOSTA — which allows for prosecutions based on conduct before the date of the bill’s enactment — might violate the constitution’s Ex Post Facto clause. It’s unclear if the language of the bill has been altered to accommodate the objection, but it could provide grounds for a legal challenge in the future absent corrective action by the Senate."
Ron Wyden (D-OR) has kept the SESTA version of the bill on hold in the Senate; it's not clear that he'll be able to keep blocking these bills indefinitely as they've passed both houses with bipartisan majorities. Both support and opposition to these bills is bipartisan, but supporters are clearly in the majority in both parties.
According to govtrack, a website that tracks bills and votes, the vote was 388/25/17 (yes/no/abstain) overall; 214/14/9 Republican, 174/11/8 Democratic.
how to use the dark net... (TOR and others)
and ladies.... start hosting and transferring sites overseas, advertising on overseas sites, (I am in several already).
Always be 2 steps ahead.
like how we said in Colombia..."para un avion, una avioneta" 
Words in communication needs to be more discreet so the Bible thumpers don’t start rattling there sanctification wand or grable Gravel in judgement .
If they could snatch a few foreigners that bring illegal drugs along with girls and boys sex working hostages , then I would be thrilled. Let’s see what pop up.
Curious what everyone is thinking g about for a strategy? Stay off net only see girls you know and can communicate directly with?
Take a break for a while ? No change whatsoever ?
From what I have gleaned from the comments and other what we know is here in a simple fashion; -
A bill passed the House with what you could say was overwhelming support considering the current state of politics.
The bill currently prohibits PROVIDING platforms for advertising/offering services. ( Possibly only enforceable in the U.S.)
The bill MAY currently extend that prohibition retroactively.
It remains to be passed in the Senate and signed by the President, which no doubt will take place short of an apocalyptic event.
My questions to those who have a better understanding of this is;-
Is there a mention of or wording that would indicate a prohibition of Internet Providers giving access to the now potentially prohibited sites here and abroad by the Hobby?
Is there wording that would indicate prohibition of Hobby Providers advertising on any prohibited platform here or abroad?
Is there wording that would indicate prohibition of Hobbyists seeking services on those sites prohibited both here and abroad?
(Ie. - as a U.S. based Provider or a Hobbyist will you be in violation of the prohibition even though your online activity whether seeking or providing is offshore?)
Of course even if these questions are answered favorably we should all keep in mind that these sort of laws are always tested by those who are charged with applying them and gleefully seize the opportunity to stretch the boundaries in hopes of a favourable decision by the judiciary, in other words you may beat the rap but not the ride.
There are already several providers who are banned from coming into the USA. I won't name them, but if you're on Twitter you'll find their posts. Sadly, (and I don't know how, they were stopped while trying to travel to the USA. My next thought is if they are going after sites like backpage.com when will they go after TER? It's the same only with a membership.
The vote on the Senate Bill, SESTA (S 1693) is Monday- call your senators opposing this bill! Here's a handy link to a script
I have the pleasure of designing websites for our lovely providers. If this passes, I'm struggling to see a way to continue my business without potential problem. I'm sure we'll all get creative but I'm shaking in 'ma boots a little for the moment. Sure enjoy this extra income.
Paul Ryan's comment that this legislation will fight human trafficking is unbelievably naive. Trafficking has existed as long as civilization has, and will continue as long as humans walk the earth. All this will do is drive it further underground where it will be harder to find and root out. I'm all for cracking down on it, punishing those who practice it, and protecting those trapped by it, but making it even harder to locate is counter-productive.
As for the rest, I have always believed that what two consenting and informed adults engage in among themselves and in their own privacy is no one's business but their own.
looks like time to move to Mexico Legal prostitution zones
EFF has several thoughtful, informed articles on the issue. Start here:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-internet
Trump signing the bill would be yugely hypocritical, since he hired Stormy Daniels for sex services.
But we know him, that puppet idiot will sign anything put in front of him.
He's too chickenshit to veto anything.
Sexworkers who do this of their own free will should not be affected by this bill.
97-2. How can you expect Trump to veto that Bill?
For the record, every single Democrat in the Senate save one voted FOR this, and just as many (one) Republicans voted against this bill as did Democrats, but you choose to blame only Trump. Let me repeat my question, just how fucking stupid are you anyhow?
An aside to the "non-stupid people" I was never a fan of his nut job father, but while I am still not completely on board with many of Rand Pauls views, I am starting to warm up to him just a bit. (for the record for the stupid people, he was one of only two senators voting against this travesty of a bill)
Are you going to feel hypocritical voting for Kamala Harris, the prime backer of this bill, when she runs against Trump? The bill passed the Senate 97-2. There’s not a politician in history who would veto such an overwhelmingly popular piece of legislation.
There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around here. This bill is going to open an avalanche of bankrupting lawsuits pursued by trial lawyers (who generously support incumbent politicians while dating providers) and activist prosecutions by state Attorneys General.
The retroactive clause that was not struck means a 22 year old girl who was trafficked 5 years ago can join a class action lawsuit against sites like BP and CV. Or any parent who saw their underage daughter show up in one of those ads.
The fact that Trump is our current President, and not Hillary, has nothing to do with the far ranging impact of this terrible bill.
I had to look up the junior Democratic Senator from California. I like her tits. I'd force fuck her face and support her endeavor.
Kamala Harris is very sexy, but her sister Maya is gorgeous too!
I totally agree with everything you said.
I think providers or clients concerned about being targeted more easily by LE through this are probably misplacing their concerns. This makes it easier for the government to go after websites - that's where the action will be. So the websites will be more proactive in trying to take down information sharing that is advertising or seems like advertising. It's going to be about equally as difficult as it was before to go after individual providers. As far as advertisements or websites or Twitter accounts, the worst I see basically anyone facing is having it simply taken down. Providers, I don't think you're any more likely to get arrested.
Some websites that have ads will scrub them as much as they can. Others will pop up to fill the void, I strongly suspect. They'll get sued. And either the law will be held unconstitutional, at which point everything will return to normal, or it won't and the scrubbing will get more vigorous everywhere.
Unfortunately as far as negative repercussions go, I think this is going to fall harder on providers than clients. It'll be harder for providers to let it be known when and where they're available, making it harder to get consistent, reliable business. That's not as big of a deal for clients if you're only seeking out a meeting, say, once every month or two. That unfortunately will create the predicament for providers of having to decide whether to get more lax on screening to facilitate more business but also will make it more dangerous for them (might also lead to prices lowering in order to attract business in a world where advertising is harder). That safety point to me is the biggest problem with the bill behind only the free speech slippery slope in allowing the government to go after websites for what other people are saying on them. The more the industry goes in the dark, the more dangerous it becomes and the harder it is to spot dark figures.
The biggest thing I can recommend to everyone is to rely on private networks. Ladies, building networks among yourselves to warn about sketchy characters I think is going to be more of an imperative moving forward. It also can help for business. I plan on e-mailing some providers I enjoyed seeing to let them know to feel free to e-mail me when they're in town and that if they have any friends in the same boat, they're welcome to pass along my e-mail address to them as well. That sort of private word of mouth among people who are trusted (that trust being very important) can also help to navigate the new situation.
Stay safe, everybody.