More Evidence that FOSTA Benefited No One – Technology & Marketing Law Blog

0
16
More Evidence that FOSTA Benefited No One - Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This is another empirical study into FOSTA’s effects. At the Stanford Trust & Safety conference, I heard a presentation of this paper: Helen Shuxuan Zeng, Brett Danaher, & Michael D. Smith, Internet Governance Through Site Shutdowns: The Impact of Shutting Down Two Major Commercial Sex Advertising Sites, being published in Management Science. Essentially, the paper didn’t find any benefits from FOSTA. The paper’s findings:

Ad Volume

FOSTA did not permanently reduce the volume of ads for commercial sex. The quantity bounced back after FOSTA, but distributed across more sites. A “key element of the rebound appears to be that the commercial sex market moved predominantly to offshore sites that could still reach U.S.-based customers and advertise U.S.-based providers.” In other words, as predicted for Congress, FOSTA scattered the ads worldwide rather than changing any of the underlying supply or demand factors.

Arrests

The authors found no statistically significant trends in the arrests for sex trafficking and prostitution pre- and post-FOSTA. Overall, their estimates “indicate a 2.5% decrease in sex trafficking cases and a 5.7% increase in prostitution arrests.” This would be consistent with the many post-FOSTA reports that law enforcement departments substituted from rescuing sex trafficking victims towards standard enforcement of prostitution laws.

Crimes Against Women

The authors found no statistically significant trends regarding female homicide and rape cases pre- and post-FOSTA. This implicitly disagrees with a study that found that Craigslist’s entry into a new community reduced female homicides.

The Authors’ Conclusions

The paper concludes that “targeting a small number of prominent sex advertising portals is unlikely, by itself, to be effective in combating sex trafficking, given the fluidity of online markets for illegal activity.”

Then the paper adds this unfortunate non-sequitur: “ISP-level website blocking may be more suited to policing some types of illegal online activities, including online sex trafficking.” Huh? That will also just scatter the ads, so it solves no problem, plus it creates all of the problems associated with site blocking. Just no.

Implications

As I’ve mentioned before, there is no evidence that FOSTA benefited any community. This paper reinforces that point, showing that FOSTA did not suppress commercial sex ads and it did not increase sex trafficking enforcement. The paper suggests that maybe FOSTA didn’t make things worse for women based solely on homicide and rape metrics, but (1) this ignores the impacts on male sex workers entirely, and (2) sex workers experienced many other physical, psychological, emotional, and financial harms due to FOSTA. The paper also does not model FOSTA’s detrimental impacts on speech, which continue to reverberate today. So, I ask again…how did FOSTA improve anything?

More SESTA/FOSTA-Related Posts

* Omegle Denied Section 230 Dismissal–AM v. Omegle
Section 230 Helps Craigslist Defeat Sex Trafficking Case–LH v. Marriott
Section 230 Helps Salesforce Defeat Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–GG v. Salesforce
Constitutional Challenge to FOSTA Fails–Woodhull v. US
Catching Up on a FOSTA Case–ML v. Craigslist
Facebook Loses Jurisdictional Ruling in Texas Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–Facebook v. Doe
Justice Thomas Really, REALLY Wants Section 230 Repealed (Even If He Has to Do It Himself)
Section 230 Immunizes TikTok for User-Posted Videos–Day v. TikTok
So Many Unanswered Empirical Questions About FOSTA
Another Problematic FOSTA Ruling–Doe v. Pornhub
Catching Up on Recent FOSTA Developments (None of Them Good)
Section 230 Preempts Claims Against Omegle–M.H. v. Omegle
To No One’s Surprise, FOSTA Is Confounding Judges–J.B. v. G6
FOSTA Claim Can Proceed Against Twitter–Doe v. Twitter
FOSTA Survives Constitutional Challenge–US v. Martono
2H 2020 Quick Links, Part 4 (FOSTA)
Justice Thomas’ Anti-Section 230 Statement Doesn’t Support Reconsideration–JB v. Craigslist
Sex Trafficking Lawsuit Against Craigslist Moves Forward–ML v. Craigslist
Section 230 Preempts Another FOSTA Claim–Doe v. Kik
Section 230 Protects Craigslist from Sex Trafficking Claims, Despite FOSTA–JB v. Craigslist
Facebook Still Can’t Dismiss Sex Trafficking Victims’ Lawsuit in Texas State Court
Craigslist Denied Section 230 Immunity for Classified Ads from 2008–ML v. Craigslist
2H 2019 and Q1 2020 Quick Links, Part 3 (FOSTA/Backpage)
New Paper Explains How FOSTA Devastated Male Sex Workers
FOSTA Constitutional Challenge Revived–Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. US
New Civil FOSTA Lawsuits Push Expansive Legal Theories Against Unexpected Defendants (Guest Blog Post)
Section 230 Helps Salesforce Defeat Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–Doe v. Salesforce
Latest Linkwrap on FOSTA’s Aftermath
Section 230 Doesn’t End Lawsuit Claiming Facebook Facilitated Sex Trafficking–Doe v. Facebook
New Essay: The Complicated Story of FOSTA and Section 230
Who Benefited from FOSTA? (Spoiler: Probably No One)
FOSTA’s Political Curse
FOSTA Doesn’t Help Pro Se Litigant’s Defamation Claim Against Facebook
Constitutional Challenge to FOSTA Dismissed for Lack of Standing (Guest Blog Post)
An Update on the Constitutional Court Challenge to FOSTA–Woodhull Freedom v. US (Guest Blog Post)
Indianapolis Police Have Been “Blinded Lately Because They Shut Backpage Down”
Constitutional Challenge Against FOSTA Filed–Woodhull v. US (Guest Blog Post)
Catching Up on FOSTA Since Its Enactment (A Linkwrap)
More Aftermath from the ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’
‘Worst of Both Worlds’ FOSTA Signed Into Law, Completing Section 230’s Evisceration
Backpage Loses Another Section 230 Motion (Again Without SESTA/FOSTA)–Florida Abolitionists v. Backpage
District Court Ruling Highlights Congress’ Hastiness To Pass ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’– Doe 1 v. Backpage
More on the Unconstitutional Retroactivity of ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’ (Guest Blog Post)
Senate Passes ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’ (Linkwrap)
Why FOSTA’s Restriction on Prostitution Promotion Violates the First Amendment (Guest Blog Post)
SESTA’s Sponsors Still Don’t Understand Section 230 (As They Are About to Eviscerate It)
Can the ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’ Be Salvaged? Perhaps…and You Can Help (URGENT CALL TO ACTION)
Congress Probably Will Ruin Section 230 This Week (SESTA/FOSTA Updates)
What’s New With SESTA/FOSTA (January 17, 2018 edition)
New House Bill (Substitute FOSTA) Has More Promising Approach to Regulating Online Sex Trafficking
* My testimony at the House Energy & Commerce Committee: Balancing Section 230 and Anti-Sex Trafficking Initiatives
How SESTA Undermines Section 230’s Good Samaritan Provisions
Manager’s Amendment for SESTA Slightly Improves a Still-Terrible Bill
Another Human Trafficking Expert Raises Concerns About SESTA (Guest Blog Post)
Another SESTA Linkwrap (Week of October 30)
Recent SESTA Developments (A Linkwrap)
Section 230’s Applicability to ‘Inconsistent’ State Laws (Guest Blog Post)
An Overview of Congress’ Pending Legislation on Sex Trafficking (Guest Blog Post)
The DOJ’s Busts of MyRedbook & Rentboy Show How Backpage Might Be Prosecuted (Guest Blog Post)
Problems With SESTA’s Retroactivity Provision (Guest Blog Post)
My Senate Testimony on SESTA + SESTA Hearing Linkwrap
Debunking Some Myths About Section 230 and Sex Trafficking (Guest Blog Post)
Congress Is About To Ruin Its Online Free Speech Masterpiece (Cross-Post)
Backpage Executives Must Face Money Laundering Charges Despite Section 230–People v. Ferrer
How Section 230 Helps Sex Trafficking Victims (and SESTA Would Hurt Them) (guest blog post)
Sen. Portman Says SESTA Doesn’t Affect the Good Samaritan Defense. He’s Wrong
Senate’s “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017”–and Section 230’s Imminent Evisceration
The “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017” Bill Would Be Bad News for Section 230
WARNING: Draft “No Immunity for Sex Traffickers Online Act” Bill Poses Major Threat to Section 230
The Implications of Excluding State Crimes from 47 U.S.C. § 230’s Immunity