Reports of Google deleting or blocking access to Google Docs (even the original creator) based on content. https://archive.is/3FXJ5 https://archive.is/oesTB https://archive.is/3UzJP https://archive.is/JbPjA The first guy is a hardcore marxist writing about E.Europe post-socialist parties (thought they would have been on his side, unless his argument was super bad, or he linked to "wrong think" sources- even if he was going to refute them in his writing). The second is a woman writing about wildlife crime (poaching I assume). In her tweet chain she says she contacted Google and got access back. Google blames an update that incorrectly labeled some docs as Abusive and automatically locked them. If this continues, expect to see shit like "Domestic Abuse Report deleted by Google because it included the word rape." Also, this means businesses have their balls in Google's hands if they use Gmail or Google Docs. If one employee does something evil (or code that is intentionally or accidentally sensitive flags them)- they can kill a business. Remember to avoid using Gmail (Use ProtonMail) and use AdNauseum whenever possible I work from home and my business uses Gmail, so I can't risk killing the businesses because my Jewtube account somehow links to my Gmail activity.

Twitter caught manipulating US Election, not Google https://twitter.com/issielapowsky/status/925727403632156672 https://archive.is/HrskN > Written remarks: In 2 mos before election Twitter also hid 25% of bot Tweets w PodestaEmail hashtag and 48% of tweets w DNC Leak hashtag Source: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-sedgett-110117.pdf Page can't archive, so download the PDF. Tweets worth RTing to spread the word: twitter.com/Nephanor/status/925753704195559429 twitter.com/Grummz/status/925775479717576704 twitter.com/getongab/status/925775738023768064

>>331311 Another Tweet worth spreading: twitter.com/getongab/status/925855545147326465 https://archive.is/B27Hq

>>331311 >>331313 And the second source Gab showed. Unfortunately, the original guy sources Buzzfeed. https://archive.is/nxAIk twitter.com/Kantrowitz/status/925820649184079873 https://archive.is/a3NkM

Net Neutrality vote "near thanksgiving". https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2017/11/fcc-net-neutrality-vote-arrive-just-thanksgiving-according-reports/43501/ https://archive.is/CvSvM It's been said a bunch of times already, but it's a bad choice either way. Some people are suggesting that since major websites like Google and other "content creators" are running the net into the ground- that letting the Net Neutrality vote fail would be "Digitally Assured Destruction" (DAD- inspired by MAD- Mutually assured destruction). There are several flaws IMO: - Losing the freedom and speed of the internet in any capacity is bad. Ignorance is the tool of our enemies. Truth (and the ability to spread it) is ours. - The ISPs may make deal with major companies so that they are minimally effected (The ISP doesn't want to go to war with Google- compared to working together so they can both make money. In other words the MAD makes them work alongside each other). - The ISPs may also aid in censorship. Unofficially throttling non-MSM news websites (which can easily be hand-waved by blaming the website for having poor servers), and making sure progressive content loads as quickly as possible. Imagine hearing about 8ch for the first time, but when you go to use it, it takes 5 or 10 mins to load a page, and a further 5 or 10 for each image or webm you click on. You're not gonna stick around. - Censorship makes it harder for us to organize and spread the truth. Along with much more serious /pol/ matters. - Google & Content Creators are a business, and can be fucked with by bad PR and DisNod. ISPs are more "faceless"- like your water company or electric company. Apart from bad prices, bad service, and poor customer service- they are much harder to mock and DisNod. We'd be trading away an enemy who has some marbles and is losing ground, for a new enemy that needs different tactics that we aren't used to. The best solution would be a much simpler law (ISPs cannot offer tiers of service promising better internet speeds) that is then oversaw by the FTC- rather than all in the hands of the FCC or ISPs. Google is shit scared of losing Net Neutrality (or maybe they're just acting nice for PR purposes), but I really do think DAD would be shooting ourselves in the foot.

ALL OF GAB'S TWEETS ARE GONE https://twitter.com/GetGEWD Search for them, and you can find people quoting/replying to tweets by them that don't exist. We need to shill for them on Twitter now. And keep RTing shit about Twitter and Google on there. It's what they did.

Sargon made a video rebuking Existential Comics and their little comic defending anitfa, and youtube deleted it because the tags said it was funny and apparently it wasn't. Like he says in the video, it's a sign of the times. It seems the left won't sit idly by while it continues to lose. The video was restored later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv-4Pxe8Dz8 Download And Share >>331346 This is still important.

Jewtube might technically be breaking copyright laws. https://archive.is/Au7L1

DECEMBER 18th IS THE TWITTER PURGE https://archive.is/KGAys https://archive.is/gP9xw < Twitter will be using cookies to determine if you have gone to a site that they do not like and then ban you for it. [Pic 1 and 2] Twitter will not let you log in if you disable cookies. [Pic 3] Basically using cookies (sites that have a tweet button, maybe more) if you have been on a "bad" website, you get banned. Ideally this means they can cut off articles that they don't like (ban the author, ban the websites Twitter account, ban anyone who shares a link to it manually or visited the website). It also gives them more ammo to ban problematic accounts. I.e. if you do shit on Facebook that would get you banned on Twitter- they'll do it. Of course, with the sheer scale of users, it's bound to be an algorithm and it will overreach. Meanwhile, people who demand death to whites and republican politicians, actual terrorists, and pedo-sympathizers will be untouched. The best retaliation (IMO)- > Make sure all the people you're interested know about it. Actual people and not business/celeb accounts I mean. > Shill for GAB. Get people on there like in the early days of the exodus where folk made posts luring anons to 8ch. Also, use GAB more often. The site is slow as dicks for me but it's better than the alternative. It's a bit of an echochamber I will admit (which means at least some of them must be fakes trying to troll or crack consensus), but that's why they need more discussion with real people. Not liberals. > DisNod Twitter via their own platform. Twitter's stock exchange code is TWTR. So if you post "$TWTR" it acts like a hashtag for those who are following Twitter's stocks & shares. FILL IT with how pissed you are Twitter is censoring AND all the bullshit accounts they allow on there that should be banned under their own glorious rules. > DisNod Twitter the old fashioned way. If you see a promoted Tweet or advert- email the company and show it next to the pedos, muslims, and left-wing psychopaths. > If you haven't already, turn off all the personalization and data collection (though I imagine you would have already, or it doesn't do much). https://archive.is/OOL2q > Don't click hyperlinks to Twitter. Always copy and paste. And always post Twitter links without the https or www. > That is how the tracking works (similar stuff Imgur and Reddit use to detect is someone is asking for upvotes via another site). I have no doubt 8ch is on their list. And if it's not, it will be when they see what sort of accounts come from there. > Be prepared for a "slow purge". They could tear off the band-aid, or ban people in a trickle. > Partake in any anti-Twitter stuff. There's a group of people looking to mass block Jack (the website's owner who has his own account) but I doubt it's effectiveness https://archive.is/QT53O. Mass reporting Jack or Twitter support might send up more attention, but only they see it and it's not public. IMO, help anti-Twitter stuff trend and get those groups to use $TWTR in their tweets. This is not a flood, this is a crosspost from /v/, I hope it tricks the bot.

>>331385 Post from /v/: >Just when so many sjws are outed as sex offenders and etc >Twitter starts this <Surely just a coincidence Gave me an idea. You could start memeing that Twitter are doing this to track & silence people who out Hollywood sexual assaults. Throwing #MeToo combined with $TWTR with that implication is sure to cause some PR nightmares.

>>331385 >< Twitter will be using cookies to determine if you have gone to a site that they do not like and then ban you for it. [Pic 1 and 2] Twitter will not let you log in if you disable cookies. Which is why Cookie Controller has "Allow as 1st party only" option for sites. Then again, it's easier to kill the button itself with adblock. If it's a tracker, treat it accordingly.

>>329032 There are two things to consider when it comes to websites: Does it censor information? Is it a honeypot? voat seems fine on number 1, unknown on number 2 gabai is a jewish word and it means "collector" so pic related

> Germany Goes Full Internet Thought Police After the string of arrests for "hate-speech" online, they German government is pushing even further claiming they need to do more. They're going full China with an Anti-Hate Speech law to censor the Internet. https://archive.is/XIMiH > Germany will enforce a law called “NetzDG” that demands compliance from social media platforms and media sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit to swiftly remove “hate speech,” “fake news,” and material illegal in the country within 24 hours of a public report. > The law affects any platform with more than two million users, meaning that even websites like 4chan, which served 27.7 million monthly users in November 2017, fall under the law’s provisions. Even the Russian social network, VK, and the video game platform, Steam, are subject to compliance. Other sources claim companies that repeatedly fail to comply with the NetzDG may be fined up to fifty million Euros. This law could mean (if social media did enforce it), that someone complaining in Germany can strip content for the rest of the world. However it might just mean it's blocked in Germany, Dave claimed it could go either way- but seeing how Twitter & co operate, the worst scenario might be more likely. Major websites bow to Germany's definition of what is offensive (which they agree with anyway), rather than their users. And Germany demands the websites censor, rather than block parts of the website for their users, or monitor them. It's clear that on top of the German government wanting to stop dissent from within it's country, it also wants to stop people around the world saying things that make it look bad. Combine that with the EU army (Pesco) and it's clear the EU is making great strides to mold the world in it's own bomb-scarred image. Get #NetzDG trending, and share it around. Repackage it for normalfags (Germany demands the world does things the way it wants. I thought they lost WW2?), and spread the risks to more intelligent parties to make this more openly discussed. Even Yale has objected to this (https://archive.is/IBwaw) > In effect, the NetzDG conscripts social media companies into governmental service as content regulators. Social media platforms not only must monitor and review content, but also must interpret the German Code’s byzantine and sometimes ambiguous provisions. But unlike a true government agency, social media companies face steep penalties for under-enforcement. As a result, the NetzDG incentivizes intermediaries to overpolice speech—social media companies are more likely to remove demeaning content that could potentially violate the Criminal Code than risk a fifty-million-Euro fine; indeed, many of these transnational companies may even be duty-bound to U.S. shareholders to construe the speech categories broadly to avoid liability. > Overpolicing driven by risk aversion is further exacerbated by the sheer number of user-generated posts. The requirement that social media companies remove content within 24 hours encourages social networks to immediately remove content that appears to fall into proscribed categories of speech, leaving companies little time to consider questionable content. Dave Cullen's not on Twitter any more, but feel free to RT (or it's equivilant) on Gan and/or Minds: https://gab.ai/DaveCullen https://gab.ai/DaveCullen/posts/17383382 https://www.minds.com/davecullen https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/796052370055012352

Twitter caught red-handed admitting they censor conservatives & Trump supporters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64gTjdUrDFQ Make sure you RT all of this and show it to everyone Use Hooktube to download twitter videos, and http://downloadtwittervideo.com/ to download videos within tweets. Remember: Archives do NOT save the videos within tweets. The videos in archives are unplayable, and just a static image of the thumbnail/first frame. https://archive.is/9aEgN https://archive.is/o7ivy (article: https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/bozell-twitters-shadow-banning-most-sinister-threat-free-speech-history archive.is didn't lke this website for some reason- kept coughing out a network error) https://archive.is/10uZz (article: https://archive.is/dTUBN) https://archive.is/yDJpq (article: https://archive.is/yk0k4) https://archive.is/Gv29T (Image, since I can't embed & upload pics, I'll post it in a minute: https://archive.is/1F0r7) https://archive.is/S1Zid https://archive.is/ERV0u (Image, since I can't embed & upload pics, I'll post it in a minute: https://archive.is/aLet0) https://archive.is/Hb4Sm (article: https://archive.is/r1vkI) https://archive.is/RBg33 https://archive.is/iclmu (2nd and third tweets in the chain are also important) https://archive.is/5MKg1 https://archive.is/FSL4r (Video is in the embed and the youtube link at the top of the page) There's even more if you go to Project Veritas and James O'Keef's Twitter pages (as of Jan 11) twitter.com/Project_Veritas/ twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/ Get this info out however you can! Tag-jack (include unrelated popular trends), include the stock-code for Twitter ($TWTR), show it to people in real life- and most importantly- if you are banned from Twitter, make another account. They want shitty people to be gone? Overload them with it. Break their censorship block, and their safe-space. Only reason I'm here is thanks to an anon posting about fullchan on halfchan about a week or two after GG was banned from discussion. Censorship can be broken, and we know that normalfags are against SJW when properly motivated (i.e. when they've been lied to, or risk being under the boot). Don't run and hide to another place. Fuck Twitter up.

>>331496 And the two images. The first one posted in some shitposting discord actually alerted me to this story. Memes inform. Make them.

> Veritas Next Bombshell! Twitter Spys On Users' Sexual Activities < Project Veritas' James O'Keefe joins Alex Jones exclusively to report on the ripple effect created by the release of his most recent hidden camera video that exposes Twitter's blatant partisanship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Bl1U5ufIV4 https://archive.is/mfvPo O 'Keefe threatens Jack with the next big update on the story. The background shows it's the sex related- presumably Twitter employees hand around nudes & dickpics for fun or potentially blackmail. They even got talking to Jack himself. If you can't appeal to people on the conservative front, you can on the pervert and potential blackmail front. And whatever Jack says is gonna be damning. https://archive.is/Qu2Hm (Image: https://archive.is/NZVJe) Vertas proposes changing your avatar to show you know. https://archive.is/3vIDR Fox covers the story, O'Keefe mocks (the rest of) MSM for not doing so as well. https://archive.is/nTCYN (Image: https://archive.is/GYgfD) To change the story/distract/divide O'Keefe & Trump, etc; a few outlets have been running with "Trump wanted to hire James O 'Keefe to steal Obama's birth records!" when his book just says Trump "was confident Obama was born in the United States." There are many tweets by O'Keefe calling them out on this. https://archive.is/uK3bF (Image: https://archive.is/NPGsv) CNN asks O'Keefe about the comment they cooked up, his staff say he's happy to appear live on air. CNN keeps asking for digital/phone interview and think it somehow counts as denying the comment. https://archive.is/CDmV8 Twitter Engineer explains why they won't verify Julian Assange. https://archive.is/L1j2n How does Twitter decide who the "shitty people" are?

>>331499 Images to the above archives.

BREAKING: HUNDREDS of Twitter Employees Paid to View "Everything You Post," & Private "Sex Messages" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgyPpsX2B0g > Project Veritas has released undercover footage of Twitter Engineers and employees admitting that Twitter employees view"everything you post" on their servers, including private "sex messages," and "d*ck pics." The engineers also admit that Twitter analyzes this information to create a "virtual profile" of you which they sell to advertisers. The "sell to advertisers" part is what should be driven home. It's not just the people who run Twitter looking at your private shit, it's someone else they sell it to. That's far more invasive (and something people haven't been conditioned to accept so it's kept more quiet). Some choice quotes from their website: https://archive.is/SDL1F > Clay Haynes: “There’s teams dedicated to it… at least, three or four hundred people… they’re paid to look at d*ck pics.” > Pranay Singh, Twitter Engineer, Says “All your sex messages… d*ck pics… like, all the girls you’ve been f*cking around with, they’re are on my server now…” […] “All your illegitimate wives and, like, all the girls you’ve been f*cking around with, they’re are on my server now… I’m going to send it to your wife, she’s going use it in your divorce.” […] “So, what happens is like, you like, write something or post pictures on line, they never go away… Because even after you send them, people are like analyzing them, to see what you are interested in, to see what you are talking about. And they sell that data.” > “Everything you send is stored on my server… You can’t [delete it], it’s already on my server.” > Claims Twitter Stores Your Private Data to Sell to Advertisers, “They’ll make a virtual profile about you” > “You’re paying for the right to use our website with your data basically.” > “You leak way more information than you think… Like, if you go to Twitter for the first time, we have information about you.” > How Would You Protect People If This Power Fell Into the Wrong Hands? “You don’t,” Says Former Twitter Engineer Conrado Miranda, “There is no way.” > Haynes was asked if this type of private information could leak from Twitter, he had this to say: “Oh yeah, and it’s a genie out of the bottle kind of thing after that point. You know? Sure, I can fire them. Heck, I could probably even sue them, in some cases. But, the genie’s already out of the bottle. Like, how do actually recoup costs… you can’t calculate the cost or the damage of that.” < “Twitter is aggressively harvesting your personal information and tracking your every movement, selling your virtual dossier to the highest bidder ” says Project Veritas Founder James O’Keefe. “Even more alarming is that these Twitter employees don’t seem to think that they are the ‘biggest brother’ out there… We have more to come – stay tuned.” https://archive.is/mmr4v (Main Tweet to share) https://archive.is/exGZ3 https://archive.is/F5594 https://archive.is/BlJHR https://archive.is/5qHu4 https://archive.is/2uJcO ("The biggest takeaway from @JamesOKeefeIII & @Project_Veritas newest undercover video? Twitter employees say Facebook and Google are even worse than Twitter is.") https://archive.is/6aDrp (The question conjurs up the image of Twitter staff as perverts. Use it.) https://archive.is/PF3Z8 Remember to include $TWTR in your own posts!

> What Are You Waiting For? Speak Out! Youtube is going to get worse before it gets better. Share it to show how bad it is for conservatives (1 cent a day from monetization). Also, /pol/ may have found a way to basically install an SJW/AntiFA/(((Them))) detector in your browser: >>>/pol/11117015 https://archive.is/lG6LL Still early days, but here's hoping it pans out.

TOP PRIORITY. SOPA #7 or 8 I dunno > What the fuck is FOSTA? https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865/text > "To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify that section 230 of such Act does not prohibit the enforcement against providers and users of interactive computer services of Federal and State criminal and civil law relating to sexual exploitation of children or sex trafficking, and for other purposes." In short, Section 230 would not apply when someone posts content that is child pornography or indicates human trafficking. The website owner must make greater strides to ensure such content never appears on their website, or be arrested. Hence the bills name: Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act. > What is Section 230? https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 > "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" In short, it means a website owner is not responsible for what its users post. The basis for nearly every Internet protection law. Without this, even false-flags can shut down websites. Or normalfag websites will have heavy algorithms to make sure "bad" content is seen. As long as a state can argue it helps trafficking, it can be pulled. Everything is a Russian bot code, so why can't anything be a secret code to help traffickers. On normalfag websites. Or 8ch. > What we do? Despite the sticked message on the top of all boards, the ship nearly sailed. It has to go to the senate however. > What's the plan? https://archive.fo/WAl4u#selection-60869.0-60869.8 1. Use the two most pro-freedom and pro-internet senators to help us rally enough of the rest to oppose FOSTA. Both Rand Paul (R) and Ron Wyden (D) have a good track record when it comes to defending the internet from threats of censorship. Paul presents himself as a libertarian, so stopping an assualt on free speech like this is right up his alley. Double for Wyden, as he's easily the most outspoken senator on issues affecting the internet by a wide margin. Like the earlier anon posted, Wyden already knows what's up and is pushing hard against FOSTA already. And remember during the SOPA/PIPA debacle he was mounting the most opposition threatening a filibuster against it. As for getting other senators on board to oppose this, the strategy for convincing them should be to understand what the most important issues are to them and package your argument in a way that appeals to their concerns. Are they passionate about the human trafficing issue? Show them the statements from the groups in the EFF article. Do they talk tough on crime? Show them what the DOJ has had to say. Are they freaking out about supposed Russian super-hackers? Put a Russian super-hacker spin on the false flag scenario. Party line towers? Point them to Paul or Wyden. Most of you are probably worried about how most senators won't want to oppose this out of fear of being seen as "supporting child sex slavery" but that's where the actions on the second front come in. 2. Get as many ecelebs to help spread the truth about FOSTA as you can and make this bill as politically toxic as possible. More or less the same points apply here as they do in regards to talking to the senators. Present the issue in a way that shows how FOSTA negatively impacts their interests. I would argue that Youtubers talking about FOSTA will likely give us the most reach and traction, followed by Twitter. Get them to talk about why FOSTA is a bad bill for the internet and how to contact their senators. And don't limit yourself to right-leaning or even centrist or apolitical megaphones. If you see an opportunity to present FOSTA to a leftist eceleb in a way that you can rally them against it, DEFINITELY do so. It shouldn't be THAT difficult, since there are already some left-leaning and anti sex-trafficking groups that have spoken out against this, plus many leftists will immediately trust the EFF. The more people there are on social media calling out this bullshit for what it is, the harder it will be for the people pushing said bullshit to use women and children as a shield to hide their tyranny. And lastly, I have one more, very important thing to say. Even if we lose this battle and FOSTA becomes law, DON'T STOP FIGHTING BACK. Should the worst come to pass, it doesn't mean the end of the fight. It only means that the fight has shifted from stopping the bill to repealing the law. THE WAR DOESN'T END IF YOU LOSE THE BATTLE. THE WAR ONLY ENDS IF YOU GIVE IN AND STOP FIGHTING. Godspeed, anons.

White House Backs Bipartisan Effort to Hold Sex Trafficking Websites Like Backpage Accountable http://archive.is/s5dD0 >Video game trade group talks WH meeting, gun violence (Article also talks about the current FOSTA situation) http://archive.is/xBPC7 (Note that the article mentions that the DoJ actually endorses FOSTA, despite the concerns about the language. Seems the techdirt article is sloppy and gives the impression that the DoJ opposed the bill when it didn't. https://archive.fo/LjMMo) >Campaigners For SESTA See It As A First Step To Stomping Out Porn http://archive.is/Njwm8 >>331629 Additional: > When is the senate vote? (i.e. do we have time for infographs, etc)? It's not definitive yet. The first article is saying the vote will likely occur the week of March 12-16, but there's no way to be certain it might not happen earlier. I have no idea how long it takes to make good infographic. I wouldn't stop at just an infographic, either. I think it would be a good idea to also make something that can be printed on a 8.5*11 and be spread around like flyers, like with the "It's okay to be white." campaign /pol/ did a while back. Big tech can't shadowban meatspace. > Are there other freedom based senators? (Make a list, make it a calling/email goal) Rand Paul and Ron Wyden are the only ones I know for sure. Even then, people should still put pressure on their own senators to drop support on the bill. It's also worth pointing out the Wyden currently has placed the Senate equivalent of the bill, S.1693 SESTA on an indefinite hold. The same article () seems to imply that he can do the same to FOSTA, but I don't know for sure if that's the case, or how easily a hold like that can be overturned, if at all. If it can, Oregon anons should definitely push him to do so. > What E-celebs should we be targeting? (showing them that list of official bodies against it helps sway their stance) This is probably the trickiest part and something that needs to be discussed. More normalfag-friendly voices like Pewdiepie are probably best, but the information needs be delivered in a way that doesn't give the opposition any sympathy. Framing this bill as using human trafficking victims as political props, rather than fighting sex-trafficking, might not be a bad idea, for instance. The advantage we have here is that this bill could be applied to anyone regardless of political alignment, so if the other side is also calling this shit out, it will be harder for them to justify this bill. > "Multiple left-leaning groups including at least one or two groups that support sex-trafficking victims [are against it]" Who? Make a list, get their statements/quotes. Helps with the goal above. On it. I'm compiling some of the most prominent ones I can find right now. It might take me a little while to gather what I have and wrap things up neatly. Link me to the gghq topic in question. I'll dump what I have compiled when I've gathered what I can.

>>331629 >>331630 Here's some statements, excerpts, documents, screenshots, and archives I've dug up of some of the anti-trafficking groups that have spoken out against FOSTA. Reminder that even though some of these qoutes refer specifically to SESTA rather than FOSTA, SESTA was added to FOSTA as part of an amendment, so those statements will still apply in the same way. Freedom Network USA Freedom Network Urges Caution in Reforming the CDA (sestahearing-freedomnetwork.pdf) >The current legal framework encourages websites to report cases of possible trafficking to law enforcement. Responsible website administrators can, and do, provide important data and information to support criminal investigations. Reforming the CDA to include the threat of civil litigation could deter responsible website administrators from trying to identify and report trafficking. >It is important to note that responsible website administration can make trafficking more visible—which can lead to increased identification. There are many cases of victims being identified online—and little doubt that without this platform, they would have not been identified. Internet sites provide a digital footprint that law enforcement can use to investigate trafficking into the sex trade, and to locate trafficking victims. When websites are shut down, the sex trade is pushed underground and sex trafficking victims are forced into even more dangerous circumstances. Street-based sex workers report significantly higher levels of victimization, including physical and sexual violence. This means that trafficking victims face even more violence, are less likely to be identified, with less evidence of their victimization. Alexandra F. Levy (Proffesor at Notre Dame Law School - University of Notre Dame) (Via a letter addressed to reps Marsha Blackburn and Mike Doyle) (HHRG-115-IF16-20171130-SD011-U11.pdf) >Reports of sex trafficking have increased as the Internet has grown in size. While this correlation is often marshaled as evidence that the Internet has caused a rise in sex trafficking, it actually proves nothing of the sort. It may simply be the case that the Internet makes it easier to detect the crime. There is likewise no basis for the idea that the proliferation of intermediaries that host advertisements has prompted an increase in sex trafficking, and, conversely, no reason to believe that limiting them will reduce commercial sexual exploitation. FOSTA (and similar measures) may appear to target sex trafficking, but the reality is that they seek to suppress mechanisms through which sex trafficking is readily detected and reported. This is the exact opposite of what we need. How Section 230 Helps Sex Trafficking Victims (and SESTA Would Hurt Them) (Guest Blog Post) http://archive.is/kjuZE#selection-373.0-407.415 >In my recent article entitled The Virtues of Unvirtuous Spaces, I wrote: >Backpage’s usefulness to antitrafficking advocates is, in fact, fully compatible with a profit-seeking approach. This is because Backpage’s value to traffickers as a means of gaining more customers and its value to law enforcement as a means of accessing and recovering more victims rise and fall together. Put differently, traffickers and law enforcement assess the value of Backpage with reference to the same characteristics, namely, accessibility and visibility of ads. >While more visibility invites more business, it also increases the possibility that victims will be discovered by law enforcement, or anyone else looking for them. By extension, it also makes it more likely that the trafficker himself will be apprehended: exposure to customers necessarily means exposure to law enforcement. This is true with respect to both the number and content of the posts. Any attempts to evade law enforcement will likely reduce profits; if traffickers avoid posting pictures of their victims’ faces, for example, their chances of attracting customers—who value information about the provider’s appearance—also drop. >Section 230 doesn’t cause lawlessness. Rather, it creates a space in which many things — including lawless behavior — come to light. And it’s in that light that multitudes of organizations and people have taken proactive steps to usher victims to safety and apprehend their abusers. >SESTA wouldn’t make Backpage more accountable for what it does — it already is subject to the same criminal laws as the rest of us, and courts have held that its civil immunity is limited to its functions as a publisher. What SESTA would do is make Backpage accountable for what it reveals. This would ultimately force Backpage to turn off the light, which, of course wouldn’t reduce trafficking; it would just shuttle it out of view. And it’s especially dangerous to confuse a problem’s disappearance with its resolution when, as here, it’s visibility that often leads to victims’ recovery.

>>331632 >>331629 >>331630 Kristen DiAngelo (Executive Director: Sacramento Sex Workers Outreach Project) (Via a letter addressed to senators Bill Nelson John Thune) (sestahearing-sac-swop.pdf) >SESTA would do nothing to decrease sex trafficking; in fact, it would have the opposite effect. It would impede free speech and punish venues that allow trafficking victims to escape the streets. When trafficking victims are pushed off of online platforms and onto the streets, we become invisible to the outside world as well as to law enforcement, thus putting us in more danger of violence. >Let me be clear: I have never met a sex trafficking victim that was set free because an online venue disappeared, but have met victims who were made less safe when those venues were shut down. I've met victims who were put on a street corner and moved from city to city, making it harder for them to get help or get away. It makes no difference to a trafficker where his victim works—where it's a street corner, a bar, or an online forum—but it makes a world of difference to the victim herself. Traffickers only care that they get their money, not where they get it from. Sex Workers Outreach Project (SWOP) SWOP-USA stands in opposition of disguised internet censorship bill SESTA, S. 1963 https://archive.is/Mi61E#selection-2215.0-2215.583 (Via: Alex Andrews of NSWP and SWOP-Orlando) >Don’t let its name fool you: the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA, S. 1693) wouldn’t help punish sex traffickers. What the bill would do (PDF) is expose any person, organization, platform, or business that hosts third-party content on the Internet to the risk of overwhelming criminal and civil liability if sex traffickers use their services. For small Internet businesses, that could be fatal: with the possibility of devastating litigation costs hanging over their heads, we think that many entrepreneurs and investors will be deterred from building new businesses online.

>>331633 >>331629 >>331630 Hearing for H.R.1865 FOSTA, (Nov 30, 2017) EFF states in this article (Internet Censorship Bills Wouldn’t Help Catch Sex Traffickers: http://archive.is/VUGHu) that a Tennessee Bureau of Investigation special agent by the name of Russ Winkler voice his opposition to the SESTA/FOSTA package, accompanied by Derri Smith of End Slavery Tennessee as a witness. He explains how he uses online platforms—particularly Backpage—to fight online sex trafficking by conducting sting operations posing as johns. >"We've conducted operations and investigations involving numerous perpetrators and victims. The one constant we encounter in our investigations is use of online platforms like Backpage.com by buyers and sellers of underage sex." Video is roughly 2 hrs 21 mins in length. I need to get to bed and I've never editied or cut a video before, so if some can cut the clips from this video or identify the timestamps where these statement are made, it would help greatly.

>>331634 >>331629 >>331630 ACLU Official statement in opposition to FOSTA: https://archive.is/PaRh0 (Note: the page appears to link to the wrond document by mistake.) Tweet against FOSTA from gab.ai: https://archive.is/xtI7a House Liberty Caucus statement against FOSTA: https://archive.is/yhbZH Also, two infographics. First from EFF that explains the importance of CDA Section 230. Second is from an organization by the name of Reframe Health and Justice 2018 (www.reframehealthandjustice.com) that go into detail into the problems of the bill mainly from the perspective of advocates of sex-trafficking victims. Not very good attention grabbers, but seem to be decent for people who want to know more.

>>331635 >>331629 >>331630 Other EFF articles on SESTA/FOSTA: >Stop SESTA: Whose Voices Will SESTA Silence? https://archive.is/rgV0C >Sex Trafficking Experts Say SESTA Is the Wrong Solution https://archive.is/h1knN >FOSTA Would Be a Disaster for Online Communities https://archive.is/CSyhD Some normalfag friendly news sites that have voiced opposition against SESTA/FOSTA: >Reason: House Passes 'Anti Sex-Trafficking' Bill Opposed by Both DOJ and Trafficking Survivors https://archive.is/2uBQI >Injustice Today: Proposed Federal Trafficking Legislation Has Surprising Opponents: Advocates Who Work With Trafficking Victims https://archive.is/uvZlO >Slate: A Bill Intended to Stop Sex Trafficking Could Significantly Curtail Internet Freedom https://archive.is/iiMhQ >Washington Examiner: Congress' sex trafficking bills draw outrage from victims groups and privacy advocates https://archive.is/T0PXx >The Verge: A new bill to fight sex trafficking would destroy a core pillar of internet freedom https://archive.is/qbJeB (You know this bill is a disaster when even the fucking VERGE of all places is agreeing with us.) And some examples of left-leaning groups opposing FOSTA. (Trans Equality) https://archive.is/amVBb (AIDS United) https://archive.is/7gH2c (PACE Society‏) https://archive.is/BnpyG (MASWAN‏) https://archive.is/mtqkC (Kate D. Amano, an individual sex worker) https://archive.is/MkwWT #SurvivorsAgainstFOSTA seems like it would be a good hashtag to throw support behind. We could easily flip the narrative on the bill by proving that this would hurt sex-trafficking victims rather than hurt them.

Attached PDF is the DoJ letter expressing concerns about (but not opposing, as previously believed) the FOSTA/SESTA package. And these are some of the groups that are behind the push for SESTA/FOSTA: http://archive.is/FIvIV 1. Shared Hope International Arlington, VA 2. Rights4Girls Washington, DC 3. Covenant House International New York, NY 4. ECPAT USA Washington, DC 5. World Without Exploitation New York, NY 6. Mary Mazzio & I AM JANE DOE Community Boston, MA 7. Courtney’s House Washington, DC 8. Legal Momentum New York, NY 9. Equality Now New York, NY 10. National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) Washington, DC 11. My Life My Choice Boston, MA 12. Truckers Against Trafficking Englewood, CO 13. Sanctuary For Families New York, NY 14. Trafficking in America Task Force Gainesville, FL 15. CSA San Diego County El Cajon, CA 16. Villanova Law School Institute on Commercial Sexual Exploitation Villanova, PA 17. National Council of Jewish Women New York New York, NY 18. Dawn’s Place Philadelphia, PA 19. Child’s World America Villanova, PA 20. Freedom From Exploitation, Inc. San Diego, CA 21. Women’s Justice NOW New York, NY 22. Children’s Law Center of California

[Expand Post]

Sacramento, CA 23. Carole Landis Foundation For Social Action Haverford, PA 24. The Voices and Faces Project Chicago, IL 25. NH Traffick Free Coalition Milford, NH 26. The Samaritan Women Baltimore, MD 27. Free to Thrive San Diego, CA 28. Enough Is Enough Great Falls, VA 29. The Lynch Foundation for Children Ranchero Santa Fe, CA 30. Bags of Hope Ministries Boston, MA 31. Hope Ranch For Women Wichita, KS 32. Wings of Refuge Iowa Falls, IA 33. North Star Initiative Lititz, PA 34. Zoë Ministries Greenwood, DE 35. Abolition Ohio Dayton, OH 36. Arrow Child & Family Ministries Baltimore, MD 37. Consumer Watchdog Washington, DC 38. Airline Ambassadors International Arlington, VA 39. Journey Out Los Angeles, CA 40. The Ricky Martin Foundation San Juan, PR 41. Praesidium Partners Richmond, VA 42. Worthwhile Wear Silverdale, PA 43. Amirah Woburn, MA 44. Saved in America Oceanside, CA 45. Awaken Reno, NV 46. Ala Kuola Honolulu, HI 47. Glory House of Miami Miami, FL 48. Generate Hope San Diego, CA 49. Refuge for Women Las Vegas Las Vegas, NV 50. Girls Inc. Washington, DC 51. New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence Concord, NH 52. National Association of Counsel for Children Aurora, CO 53. New Hope Youth Ministries Russellville, AR 54. Living in Freedom Together Inc. Worcester, MA 55. Her Song Jacksonville Jacksonville, FL 56. Convo Church Reno, NV 57. The Daughter Project Perrysburg, OH 58. New Life Refuge Ministries Corpus Christy, TX 59. LifeWire Bellevue, WA 60. Hope Ranch for Women Wichita, KS 61. The Lighthouse Community Center Lynchburg, VA 62. Artworks for Freedom Washington, DC 63. Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation Chicago, IL 64. Stolen Youth Seattle, WA 65. Prevention Works Joint Task Force & Coalition Conyers, GA 66. Engedi Refuge Ministries Lynden, WA 67. True Justice International New Bern, NC 68. Girls with Grit Austin, TX 69. eWomenNetwork Dallas, TX 70. ExposeSexEdNow Charleston, SC 71. National Council of Jewish Women Washington, DC 72. TraffickStop Burleson, TX 73. Survivors for Solutions Denver, CO 74. Family Watch International Gilbert, AZ 75. American Family Association of Pennsylvania Franklin, PA 76. Christian Action League of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 77. Restored Hope Ministries Dallas, TX 78. In Our Backyard Redmond, OR 79. Universal Peace Federation Tarrytown, NY 80. International Athletes’ Abolition Mission Havelock, NC 81. Being a Voice Philadelphia, PA 82. iCare4, Inc. Evans, GA 83. Delaware Family Policy Council Dover, DE 84. Institute on Religion and Democracy Washington, DC 85. New Jersey Coalition Against Human Trafficking Shorthills, NJ 86. S.H.A.D.E. Movement Emeryville, CA 87. Florida Abolitionist Orlando, FL 88. The Refuge for DMST Austin, TX 89. Girls Against Porn & Human Trafficking/Men Against Porn Nashville, TN 90. Second Life Tennessee Chattanooga, TN 91. Leadership Conference of Women Religious Silver Spring, MD 92. Girls Educational & Mentoring Services (GEMS) New York, NY 93. Graham Windam Brooklyn, NY 94. National Council of Jewish Women—Essex County Livingston, NJ 95. SeraphimGLOBAL Arlington, VA 96. Protect Young Minds Richland, WA 97. Refuge City Richardson, TX 98. West Coast Children’s Clinic Oakland, CA 99. National Crittenton Foundation Portland, OR 100. National Decency Coalition Mount Juliet, TN 101. Beloved Haven Moyock, NC 102. Blue Ridge Fellows Roanoke, VA

How do we collate all this into an infograph?

imgur.com/gallery/LJAeNVY FOSTA is on the front page of Imgur (23rd March). Help deal with their shills, maybe give then advice on how to push back. Senator calling won't do shit (since they can just throw up their hands and say "It's already passed I can't do shit!"), so I'd say protests are the next step. Also, some websites are affected already. > The TDLR: is a bill written under the guise of stopping sex trafficking, has stripped away the protection of section 230 of the Communications act of 1934 which means companies that run web services will soon be responsible for the actions of their users, even if they are unaware of them, to the point of criminal charges that could result in up to 25 years in prison. This seems possibly to apply retroactively, meaning websites could be punished for stuff their users did, before this became a law. > Reddit started a massive purge of communities that revolve around pretty much anything that can end up being criminal. Guns, drugs, tobacco and alcohol advice on these topics, subreddits dedicated to talking about criminal activities (real or not) etc. Details can be seen here https://www.red*dit.com/r/announcements/comments/863xcj/new_addition_to_sitewide_rules_regarding_the_use/ The outrage in the community is extensive. > Craigslist has shut down its personals section and now redirects here https://www.craigslist.org/about/FOSTA when you click it. Their statement is short, and succinct. We need a presidential Veto at this stage. SOPA was rejected since it was well known, and toxic to support. Inform & Protest. Upload shit to government websites to get them shut down under their own law, anything!!

>>331673 Actually, we could hammer Twitter, Google (via Gmail) and Youtube by abusing this law and reporting it ourselves. They want to stay up to manipulate elections, so they pull strings to veto the law.

Hey, heard rumor from a friend that Twitter doesn't allow you to use Archive.is links in tweets and/or DMs to people. I don't have one, so I can't test it. There are still Archive.is links on Twitter, so it might be any new ones from now on are verboten. If so, might want to include screencaps of articles with the archive URL placed onto it.

For concerns of SESTA and FOSTA, #HaveAVoice is a tag being pushed to inform about it, and call for it not to be signed. #CLOUDAct is also relevant. https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2018/03/dear-president-trump-dont-sign-sesta-fosta-let-internet-haveavoice/

EU: ARTICLE 11 "LINK LICENSE" & ARTICLE 13 "COMPULSORY COPYRIGHT FILTER" •https://archive.is/FZmCa •Article 13 has passed its preliminary vote https://archive.fo/AWYU7 •There will be another vote come January, it is not over yet US: FOSTA-SESTA PASSED: BROAD CENSORSHIP LAW UNDER GUISE OF "FIGHTING HUMAN TRAFFICKING" •Violates "ex post facto" laws https://archive.fo/OsPBB#selection-123.0-145.267 •Signed into law: https://archive.is/AM3Om •Various organizations suing https://archive.fo/sN7iM •Lawsuit dismissed. Law's constitutionality was not addressed. Pending further action https://archive.is/Gpx9H A new course of action needs to be discussed. Remember the bunker

>>332324 whats the bunker?

>>331673 >This seems possibly to apply retroactively, meaning websites could be punished for stuff their users did, before this became a law. No, ex post facto Definition Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Overview Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, § 9 This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto. Art. 1 § 10. This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.

>>331673 >>332841 Scope What Constitutes Punishment In the often-cited case of Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 (1925), the Supreme Court defined the scope of the constitutional ex post facto restrictions: "It is settled, by decisions of this Court so well known that their citation may be dispensed with, that any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto." Courts have applied this standard to different parts of the criminal process. California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 514 US 499 (1995) takes the Beazell standard and applies it to the parole process. In Morales, California amended a law to state that the California Board of Prison Terms may defer parole hearings for up to three years for a prisoner convicted of more than one homicide offense. Respondent-defendant Morales was imprisoned before the law was amended, and he was subsequently affected by it when he applied for a parole hearing. In his lawsuit, he claimed that the amendment violated the ex post facto prohibition. The Supreme Court, in applying Beazell, held that an amendment which impacts someone currently imprisoned to a law does not violate ex post facto if the amendment does not increase the punishment attached to the respondent's crime. The Court held that here, the amendment did not impact Morales's sentence nor did it impact any substantive attempt to be granted parole. The Court found that a simple alteration of a prisoner's process of attaining parole does not violate ex post facto prohibitions. Retroactive Judicial Decisions At a minimum, ex post facto prohibits legislatures from passing laws which retroactively criminalize behavior. However, this prohibition does not attach as strictly to judicial decisions. Appellate courts sometimes announce a new rule of law, but will not apply it to the case in front of it, in order to attempt to comply with ex post facto prohibitions. Year and a Day Rule The Year and a Day Rule is a common law doctrine which states that a person cannot be convicted of homicide for a death that occurs more than a year and a day after his or her act(s) that allegedly caused the death. Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2000) dealt with the doctrine. Defendant-petitioner Rogers had stabbed Bowdery, who died 15 months later. The trial court found Rogers guilty of murder. When Rogers appealed to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals under the Year and a Day Rule, the appellate court upheld the conviction and abolished the Year and a Day Rule for Tennessee. Rogers ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the appellate court's action violated the ex post facto prohibition. The Supreme Court in Rogers found that ex post facto was not present here, as the appellate "court's decision was a routine exercise of common law decisionmaking that brought the law into conformity with reason and common sense." The Rogers court also referenced a previous Supreme Court decision, Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964), which held that "due process prohibits retroactive application of any judicial construction of a criminal statute that is unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which has been expressed prior to the conduct in issue." Rogers, considering the holding in Bouie, held that the ex post facto prohibition applies only to legislative decisions, and that even if it were to apply to judicial decisions, the retroactive judicial repeal of the Year and a Day Rule is neither unexpected nor indefensible. from cornell