Shockingly, NY Times Columnist Is Totally Clueless About The Internet

from the do-your-fucking-research,-kristof dept

It's fairly stunning just how often the NY Times Opinion pages are just... wrong. Nick Kristof, one of the most well known of the NYT's columnists, has spent years, talking about stopping sex trafficking -- but with a history of being fast and loose with facts, and showing either little regard for verifying what he's saying, or a poor understanding of the consequences of what he says. I would hope that everyone reading this supports stopping illegal and coerced sex trafficking. But doing so shouldn't allow making up facts and ignoring how certain superficial actions might make the problems worse. Kristof, in particular, has been targeting Backpage.com for at least five years -- but has been caught vastly exaggerating claims about the site to the point of potentially misstating facts entirely (such as claiming Backpage existed before it actually did, and that it operated in cities where it did not). Kristof also has a history of being laughably credulous when someone comes along with a good story about sex trafficking, even when it's mostly made up. He's been accused of having a bit of a savior complex.

And that's on display with his recent, extraordinarily confused piece attacking Google for not supporting SESTA -- the "Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act." As we've explained in great detail, SESTA (despite its name) is unlikely to stop any sex trafficking and likely would make the problem worse. That's because the whole point of SESTA is to undermine CDA 230, the part of the law that creates incentives for tech companies to work with authorities and to help them track down sex trafficking on their sites. What the bill would do is make websites owners now both civilly and criminally liable for knowledge of any sex trafficking activity on their sites -- meaning that any proactive efforts by them to monitor their websites may be seen as "knowledge," thus making them liable. The new incentives will be not to help out at all -- not to monitor and not to search.

Meanwhile, by putting such a massive target on websites, it will inevitably be abused. We see how people abuse the DMCA to take down content all the time -- now add in the possibility of sites getting hit with criminal penalties, and you can see how quickly this "tool" will be abused to silence content online.

But, never mind all of that. To Kristof, because the bill says it's against sex trafficking, and he's against sex trafficking, it must be good. And, he's quite sure that the only people against the bill are Google, and that there's ill-intent there.

Why? Why would Google ally itself with Backpage, which is involved in 73 percent of cases of suspected child sex trafficking in the U.S., which advertised a 13-year-old whose pimp had tattooed his name on her eyelids?

First of all, Kristof is, again, playing fast and loose with the facts if he thinks Google is an "ally" of Backpage. Google has directly come out and said that it believes that Backpage should be criminally prosecuted by the DOJ (remember, CDA 230 does not apply to federal criminal charges).

I want to make our position on this clear. Google believes that Backpage.com can and should be held accountable for its crimes. We strongly applaud the work of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in exposing Backpage's intentional promotion of child sex trafficking through ads. Based on those findings, Google believes that Backpage.com should be criminally prosecuted by the US Department of Justice for facilitating child sex trafficking, something they can do today without need to amend any laws. And years before the Senate's investigation and report, we prohibited Backpage from advertising on Google, and we have criticized Backpage publicly.

So, no, Google is not protecting Backpage. Kristof, towards the end of his post, waves off Google's strong words about Backpage as proof that it has no reason not to support this legislation, without even once grappling with (a) what Google actually says or (b) why Google (and tons of others) would still oppose this legislation as being tremendously damaging. Even if you're not quite as convinced as Google that Backpage has broken the law (the Senate Report appeared to take a number of Backpage actions completely out of context), to argue that Google is supporting Backpage is clearly just wrong. But, Kristof, having set up his thesis, is going to go for it, no matter how wrong:

The answer has to do with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects internet companies like Google (and The New York Times) from lawsuits — and also protects Backpage. Google seems to have a vague, poorly grounded fear that closing the loophole would open the way to frivolous lawsuits and investigations and lead to a slippery slope that will damage its interests and the freedom of the internet.

"Poorly grounded fear?" That's just wrong. Kristof seems totally ignorant of issues related to intermediary liability on the internet -- an issue that has been studied for quite some time. When you give people tools to put liability on online services for the actions of their users, the tools are abused. Every time. They get abused for censorship. We know this. You don't have to look any further than the intermediary liability setup we have in the copyright realm, where every year we see millions of false DMCA notices filed just to censor content, and not for any reason having to do with copyright.

How do you think things will turn out when you're able to not just threaten a website with civil copyright penalties with limited damages, but with potential criminal penalties, through a vaguely worded law where mere "knowledge" can get your entire site in trouble? But again, Kristof doesn't care.

That impresses few people outside the tech community, for the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act was crafted exceedingly narrowly to target only those intentionally engaged in trafficking children. Some tech companies, including Oracle, have endorsed the bill.

First, this is wrong. Lots of people outside the tech industry have raised concerns -- including free speech groups like the ACLU. But, even if it were only the tech community, why wouldn't you listen to the industry that actually has the experience in understanding how these kinds of laws are regularly abused to silence perfectly legitimate speech and to quash perfectly legitimate services? Wouldn't their input be valuable? Why does Kristof brush them off? As for the Oracle line -- let's be clear: Oracle and HP are the only "tech" companies that have come out in support of the bill, and neither run online services impacted by CDA 230. It's completely disingenuous to argue that Oracle represents "tech" when it's not an internet services provider who would be impacted by changes in CDA 230. Why even listen to them, rather than those who have the actual experience?

And the idea that this was "crafted exceedingly narrowly to only target those intentionally engaged in trafficking children" is just on its face, wrong. First off, the bill doesn't specifically just target trafficking having to do with children, but I think we can all agree that any trafficking is problematic. The issue is that it doesn't just punish those "intentionally engaged in trafficking." It specifically targets any website that is used in a way that "assists, supports or facilitates" trafficking and has broadly defined "knowledge" that the site is used that way. That's... not intentionally engaging in trafficking. It's much, much, much broader. Let's say you're Airbnb. SESTA makes it much riskier to be in business. If Airbnb hears that someone used Airbnb to traffic someone (which, unfortunately, is impossible to detect), now it risks criminal and civil lawsuits, because it "knew" of conduct that "assisted, supported, or facilitated." This is even if Airbnb doesn't know which accounts were used for this.

“This bill only impacts bad-actor websites,” notes Yiota Souras, general counsel at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. “You don’t inadvertently traffic a child.”

This is... just so misguided and wrong it's almost laughable. No, of course, no one "inadvertently" traffics a child. But that's not what this law is about. The law is about blaming websites if one of its users does anything related to trafficking someone via its services. And, that creates massive potential liability. Say someone wants to get our little site in trouble? They could just go and post links in comments to sex trafficking ads, and suddenly we're facing potential criminal charges. We're not Google. We can't hire staff to read every possible comment and recognize whether or not they're linking to illegal activity. And despite what some will say, even Google can't possibly hire enough staff, or get its AI good enough, to parse everything it touches to see whether or not it's linked to illegal activity. But under the current setup of SESTA, this leads you to a risk of massive liability.

The concerns here are real -- and Kristof is either ignorant or being purposely blind to the arguments here.

Senator Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican and lead sponsor of the legislation, says that it would clearly never affect Google. “We’ve tried to work with them,” Portman told me

This is laughable. The bill would impact basically every site, including Google. After all, it was just a few years ago, that a Mississippi Attorney General went on an illegal fishing expedition against Google -- put together by the MPAA's lawyers -- demanding all sorts of information from Google. Based on what? Well, Jim Hood said that because he could use Google to find sex trafficking ads, Google was breaking the law. A court tossed this out, and the two sides eventually settled, but under SESTA, Hood would now be able to go after Google criminally if any search turned up trafficking. And how the hell is Google supposed to make sure that no one ever uses any of its properties for sex trafficking?

But, never mind the facts. Kristof insists there's no issue here because the bill's sponsor says there's no issue.

Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the lead Democratic sponsor, adds that “it’s truly baffling and perplexing” that some in the tech world (Google above all) have dug in their heels. He says the sex trafficking bill gathered 28 co-sponsors within a week, making it a rare piece of bipartisan legislation that seems likely to become law.

It's truly baffling that those with actual experience and knowledge in how weakening intermediary liability laws creates all sorts of problems are now telling you there will be all sorts of problems? And, really, isn't this the same Senator Richard Blumenthal who, when he was Connecticut Attorney General, was famous for campaigning against CDA 230 and blaming tech for basically everything? He's not exactly a credible voice. But, Kristof has his story and he apparently seems willing to believe anyone who says anything, no matter how little is based on facts, if it supports his version of the story.

I write about this issue because I’m haunted by the kids I’ve met who were pretty much enslaved, right here in the U.S. in the 21st century. I’ve been writing about Backpage for more than five years, ever since I came across a terrified 13-year-old girl, Baby Face, who had been forced to work for a pimp in New York City.

And you've been repeatedly called out and corrected for factual errors in your writing on this issue. Because you're quick to believe things that later turn out to be wrong. And, yes, stories like ones you've come across are awful and we should be doing everything possible to stop such exploitation. But blaming internet companies doesn't help. You blame the actual criminals, the ones trafficking the children. But, Kristof is clear: he doesn't care about blaming those actually responsible. He wants to take down internet companies. Because reasons.

But it’s not enough to send a few pimps to prison; we should also go after online marketplaces like Backpage. That’s why Google’s myopia is so sad.

Why? Why should we blame internet companies because people use them for illegal activity? What's wrong with blaming the people who actually break the laws? CDA 230, as currently written, encourages platforms to cooperate with law enforcement and to take down content. SESTA would undermine that and stop companies from working with law enforcement, because any admission of "knowledge" can be used against them.

In response to my inquiries, Google issued a statement: “Backpage acted criminally to facilitate child sex trafficking, and we strongly urge the Department of Justice to prosecute them for their egregious crimes against children. … Google will continue to work alongside Congress, antitrafficking organizations and other technology companies to combat sex trafficking.”

Fine, but then why oppose legislation? Why use intermediaries to defend Backpage? To me, all this reflects the tech world’s moral blindness about what’s happening outside its bubble.

Why oppose it? Because the legislation is a nuclear bomb on how the internet works and a direct attack on free speech. It's not "moral blindness" at all. In fact, SESTA would be a moral disaster because it removes incentives for companies to help stop trafficking, out of fear of creating "knowledge" for which they'll face civil and criminal lawsuits. This has been explained to Kristof -- and, in fact, people told him this on Twitter after his article was published, and he insisted that no one other than Google seemed concerned with SESTA.

That's also not true. As we've seen with our own letter, dozens of tech companies are worried about it. And we've talked to many more who admitted to us that they, too, think this is an awful law, but they're afraid of grandstanding folks like Kristof publishing misleading screeds against them falsely saying that worrying about SESTA is the same as supporting sex trafficking.

Incredibly, when an actual human trafficking expert and researcher, Dr. Kim Mehlman-Orozco, decided to challenge Kristof and point out that his opinions aren't backed up by the actual research, Kristof dismissed her views and data as not being as valuable as the few anecdotes he has.

Even if Google were right that ending the immunity for Backpage might lead to an occasional frivolous lawsuit, life requires some balancing.

Uh, what? This is basically Kristof first admitting that he's wrong that it won't impact sites other than Backpage, and then saying "meh, no biggie." But that's... really fucked up. We're not talking about the "occasional frivolous lawsuit." From what we've seen with the DMCA, it seems likely that there would be a rash of dangerous lawsuits, and companies being forced out of business -- not to mention tons of frivolous threats that never get to the lawsuit stage, but lead to widespread censorship just out of the fear of possible liability. How can Kristof just shrug that off as "balance"?

For example, websites must try to remove copyrighted material if it’s posted on their sites. That’s a constraint on internet freedom that makes sense, and it hasn’t proved a slippery slope. If we’re willing to protect copyrights, shouldn’t we do as much to protect children sold for sex?

HOLY SHIT. And here we learn that Kristof is so completely out of his depth that it's not even funny. Seriously, someone educate Nick Kristof a little on how the DMCA has been abused to silence speech, to kill companies and to create huge problems for free speech online? And that's with much lower penalties than what we're talking about with SESTA.

I asked Nacole, a mom in Washington State whose daughter was trafficked on Backpage at the age of 15, what she would say to Google.

“Our children can’t be the cost of doing business,” she said. Google understands so much about business, but apparently not that.

Ah, always close with a "for the children!" argument after making a bunch of statements that are just devoid of facts. No one is fighting this for the support of "business." They're doing it because they understand how important intermediary liability protections are against undermining how the internet works and how free speech works online. Kristof has a long history of not caring about facts so long as he gets a good story about just how concerned he is about trafficking. We're all concerned about trafficking -- but passing a law that will make the problem worse just to appear like you're a hero is not the solution, Nick.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2017 @ 10:59am

    Shockingly?

    I thought that columnists were paid to be clueless.

    Moreover if it's the internet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 20 Sep 2017 @ 12:17am

      Re:

      I wonder -- does Kristof have a blog? Does it have comments? Is he aware that if he bans someone for posting a link to Backpage, he'd be criminally liable were SESTA to pass?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2017 @ 11:05am

    it's not his fault

    Nick Kristof doesn't understand what he's talking about because he spent too many years huffing public cum socks. That's no reason to nail the man to the wall. We just need to get Nick Kristof some help with his cum sock addiction.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2017 @ 11:08am

    Say. Is anyone here sponsored by Google?

    Oh, right. Odd coincidence, that.

    https://copia.is/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sponsors.png

    That "conflict of interest", to euphemize, should be prominent in EVERY piece that mentions Google. A journalist would. A blogger is "free" from responsiblity to tell all that's relevant to judging the case, though.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2017 @ 11:12am

      Re: Say. Is anyone here sponsored by Google?

      I'm not "sponsored by Google," and you're still a fucking moron.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2017 @ 11:12am

      Re: Say. Is anyone here sponsored by Google?

      Telling that you, of course, cannot actually address any of the issues.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2017 @ 11:12am

      Re: Say. Is anyone here sponsored by Google?

      Christ you're tiresome, and predictable, and wrong. You're the triple threat of bullshit.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 19 Sep 2017 @ 11:25am

      Re: Say. Is anyone here sponsored by Google?

      I do not think highly of Google. Lest you think they sponsor me, I will show you my non-existent bank account with absolutely no money in it. I still believe their position on SESTA is the correct position, and your comment offers nothing in way of a compelling argument against that position.

      How much of an argument do you even have beyond “Google is evil”?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 19 Sep 2017 @ 11:45am

      Re: Say. Is anyone here sponsored by Google?

      New around here? Check the Google tag and you'll see plenty of criticism towards Google.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      techflaws (profile), 19 Sep 2017 @ 9:47pm

      Re: Say. Is anyone here sponsored by Google?

      Bulling bullshit out of your ass, Kristof is that you?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2017 @ 11:29am

    Cluelessness IS he New York Times

    Their 1920 commentary on Robert Goddard remains, to this day, a landmark in their history of cluelessness. They (sort of) retracted it later. 49 years later.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Christenson, 19 Sep 2017 @ 11:36am

    Time for a fact-free rebuttal

    In which, Nick Kristof's current editorial (and other public statements) is taken out of context and twisted into making him personally and criminally liable for promoting the horrible act of sex trafficking according to SESTA, which he is pushing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 19 Sep 2017 @ 11:44am

    The guy flat out lies and makes up facts. Wouldn't this make for a successful defamation lawsuit?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 19 Sep 2017 @ 12:04pm

      Re:

      I've set him up as a service on IFTTT. You can use it to trigger a micro-payment donation to the EFF every time he makes stuff up.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2017 @ 12:27pm

        Re: Re:

        No freaking way I will go for that... My life savings would be gone very quickly with all the BS in just one article.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      JEDIDIAH, 19 Sep 2017 @ 1:51pm

      Not quite.

      No. Anti-SLAPP laws pretty much put that idea to bed permanently. The baby got thrown out with the bath water there.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      R.H. (profile), 19 Sep 2017 @ 7:59pm

      Re:

      As long as he writes in the opinion section, he's clean. Journalistic integrity should keep editors from publishing him but, legally, there's nothing to be done.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anomalous Cowherd, 19 Sep 2017 @ 11:50am

    Who reads his column?

    Mmmmm, Nickie, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Dunning and Mr. Kruger. They're here to help explain your abysmal grasp of the real world.

    Seriously, I gave up on Kristof twenty years ago. He's a privileged, clueless shill. I'm amazed that anyone still reads him. The NYT should be embarrassed that they continue to waste perfectly good paper and ink on his useless meanderings.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2017 @ 11:50am

    I wonder if Glock et al. have knowledge of what they offer for money being used to commit crimes. Murders, even.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2017 @ 11:59am

    Hm. He's got a comments section right on that article. I wonder, if people started posting sex-trafficking ads there, would he be liable?

    I do see a new business innovation starting from all this. Well, maybe not "new", so much....:

    "Say, Mr. Kristof, that's a nice column you have there...."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      takitus (profile), 19 Sep 2017 @ 12:35pm

      Re:

      Among other things, SESTA would probably accelerate the death of the comment section. Smaller internet organization would likely find it safer to outsource discussion to a social media service with a legal budget, and Serious Business platforms like NYT would have a good excuse to kill off public commentary.

      The read-only Web beckons.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2017 @ 12:21pm

    Even if Google were right that ending the immunity for Backpage might lead to an occasional frivolous lawsuit, life requires some balancing.

    and obviously its google that needs to do that balancing, not the pearl clutching reactionaries.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2017 @ 12:46pm

    I think your wording can be wrongly interpeted

    In fact, SESTA would be a moral disaster because it removes incentives for companies to help stop trafficking, out of fear of creating "knowledge" for which they'll face civil and criminal lawsuits.

    It will not remove all incentives... I think that many people are going to be very torn up about this, because many of them truly want to help. However when somebody tells you that you have to go on the cross for helping, people get scared.
    They didn't sign up for sacrificing themselves - they are not soldiers in a war. Many of them just want to follow their dreams and help where they can, because I guarantee that working with tech does not remove ones morals.

    I know it is not going to help anything, but I really want someone to just stop with the politician speech and plainly ask the people who blindly support this bill, what they are up to? If not hiding any secondary (or maybe primary) purpose, then what is the problem in clarifying the language? Why is the internet companies the only ones who get hit with laws giving almost full power to ruin them this way? What would happen if the same rules were applied to phone companies, car companies, gun sellers, knife sellers, glass makers, and so on?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 19 Sep 2017 @ 12:55pm

      Re: I think your wording can be wrongly interpeted

      what is the problem in clarifying the language?

      They do not want to look like they do not know what they are doing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2017 @ 1:04pm

      Re: I think your wording can be wrongly interpeted

      What would happen if the same rules were applied to phone companies, car companies, gun sellers, knife sellers, glass makers, and so on?

      Camera makers should clearly be required to include child pornography filters. They know their products are used for that purpose and have done nothing to stop it. If they can't (or won't) stop it then maybe they shouldn't be in the camera business.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2017 @ 1:13pm

        Re: Re: I think your wording can be wrongly interpeted

        What about senators and law enforcment?

        they write laws that allow them to take underage people behind closed doors and undress them. I say we should nail their asses to wall for that shit!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        orbitalinsertion (profile), 19 Sep 2017 @ 5:33pm

        Re: Re: I think your wording can be wrongly interpeted

        A pimp walked trough your neighborhood, so we are going to bulldoze 9 blocks of your homes to keep your children safe.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2017 @ 12:56pm

    Problem? What problem?

    Seriously, someone educate Nick Kristof a little on how the DMCA has been abused to silence speech, to kill companies and to create huge problems for free speech online?

    That's only if you consider such abuse to be bad. Kristof and the NY Times seem to think it's good.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2017 @ 1:31pm

    easier to stomach if google wasn't such a piece of shit company

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 19 Sep 2017 @ 2:15pm

      Re:

      Much like defending free speech or the rights of the accused, no matter how slimy they may or may not be, this is another of those cases where circumstances can make for strange bedfellows.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 19 Sep 2017 @ 2:58pm

      Re:

      You can advocate for a position shared by someone you dislike and still dislike that someone. The ACLU exists primarily to do just that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    stderric (profile), 19 Sep 2017 @ 2:42pm

    I’ve been writing about Backpage for more than five years, ever since I came across a terrified 13-year-old girl, Baby Face, who had been forced to work for a pimp in New York City.

    In Kristof's reality, I think this means he's seen Taxi Driver.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Scoperrope, 19 Sep 2017 @ 2:56pm

    Even this. If we can just accept that people like to fuck and legalize sales of said fucks where said fucks have a registry of requirements, health and safety, it becomes far less .. profitable to infiltrate any markets with illegal fucks. Doesn't it? Is that so fucking hard?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 19 Sep 2017 @ 5:34pm

    "Poorly grounded fear?"

    Never mind the claims of a poorly grounded fear, what fucking loophole?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Sep 2017 @ 6:12pm

    I look forward to that day when we have elected officials who actually read & understand the bills they vote on rather than just worry that the title will give them a nice PR boost.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    YatOG, 19 Sep 2017 @ 7:58pm

    You can't fix stupid.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Sep 2017 @ 11:54pm

    Because the really important things in life are promoting prostitution. You people are pathetic.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John E Cressman, 20 Sep 2017 @ 5:38am

    Really? Shockingly?

    Really? You actually used Shockingly? How about

    "As Expected, NY Times Columnist Is Totally Clueless About The Internet"

    or

    "As Usual, NY Times Columnist Is Totally Clueless About The Internet"

    In general, media (ESPECIALLY TV and MOVIES) generally have NO CLUE about anything internet and especially get it wrong when they try to portray hacking or programming - Swordfish anyone... Hackers anyone?!

    I am NEVER shocked when the media gets things wrong about the internet - how it works, where it came from (Not Al Gore!) or what REAL benefits it provides.

    The only thing that is truly shocking... is that fact that you were shocked.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Digitari, 20 Sep 2017 @ 6:22am

    why stop there.........

    It's has been known and proven that life ends in death 100%, So, every parent on the planet knowingly abuses children by just the fact of them being born. Ergo, every parent is liable to child abuse and sex trafficking and should be criminally prosecuted. (but you say this is ludicrous)

    If procreation was done through the internet, this would be the next law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Glathull (profile), 21 Sep 2017 @ 6:32pm

    I just looked at a post on Craigslist for a sofa.

    Did I just facilitate sex trafficking?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Sep 2017 @ 10:27pm

    Oracle doesn't run online services impacted by CDA 230?

    Oracle is a cloud service provider. https://cloud.oracle.com/home

    All kinds of services that can be targeted by this law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.