Wall street journal internet dating completely eastern european dating

As Eric Goldman has explained multiple times, under the wording of SESTA, most websites are encouraged to take one of two extreme positions, neither of which are helpful.

One is that if they moderate, they will become overly cautious, quick to take down anything that might put them at risk, or for which they received a notice.

No one has discussed why we need another law on top of that one, or why the SAVE Act has not been used, even though it targets the same issue in a more targeted fashion.

And the biggest reason of all that we don't need SESTA to take on Backpage: Backpage has already shut down its adult ads section, due to the mounting pressure from politicians, lawsuits and law enforcement.

The WSJ points this out as well: And that leaves out two other points that show that SESTA is not needed to take down Backpage.

Throughout the entire SESTA process, politicians have acted as if the SAVE Act never even happened.Separately, it's widely been reported that the DOJ has begun a grand jury investigation into Backpage.And, despite what people will tell you, nothing in Section 230 prevents the Justice Department from going after federal crimes (including sex trafficking).And the Wall Street Journal has spent years attacking Google at every opportunity.But, this time, the editorial gets the story right -- highlighting that the effort is clearly being driven by anti-Google animus, even though it will create all sorts of other problems (problems that Google can mostly survive easily).

Leave a Reply