Lots of sites seem to be cracking down on anything related to sex. Of course we all witnessed what happened to Craigslist personals and Backpage and the spike in interest in this site by those who were kicked off of those sites. And then Tumblr a few days ago apparently announcing it will be cutting off sex-related blogs. Now Facebook is apparently cracking down. Is this possibly the beginning of the end of using the internet to enjoy our little hobby? Discuss.
Facebook Cracks Down On Sex
Facebook Cracks Down On Sex
It seems like all the free sites are kicking all the nudity and porn out. Haven't had a pay site do it yet.
While I ABSOLUTELY support the eradication of child porn and sex trafficking I think Facebook and other sites' approach might be extreme. I think they're trying to take the easy way out and rather than police their own sites they would rather just get rid of ALL sex-related content. Censorship is censorship. And I can't help but wonder how much of this is related to some of the current political attitudes in this country. 
EVILDOERS wrote:Unfortunately, it is very difficult to police child pornography. It's one of those things you have to ask yourself, is allowing porn on your site generating enough revenue for you to justify the potential legal fall out? Port is free everywhere and doubt this hits their bottom line at all. Personally as much as we miss Craigslist, the exploitation was definitely rampant on that site. With the way the new laws have been written it's not worth the risk. What's the alternative or options?
While I ABSOLUTELY support the eradication of child porn and sex trafficking I think Facebook and other sites' approach might be extreme. I think they're trying to take the easy way out and rather than police their own sites they would rather just get rid of ALL sex-related content. Censorship is censorship. And I can't help but wonder how much of this is related to some of the current political attitudes in this country.
If the "gobament" starts cracking down on sites like Swingular, I vote we organize into a legally recognized religion whos sacraments include orgies and public spankings.
I nominate myself as profit, spanker, and revel-in-her. Are there any opposed?
I nominate myself as profit, spanker, and revel-in-her. Are there any opposed?
Utahldscouple wrote:EVILDOERS wrote:Unfortunately, it is very difficult to police child pornography. It's one of those things you have to ask yourself, is allowing porn on your site generating enough revenue for you to justify the potential legal fall out? Port is free everywhere and doubt this hits their bottom line at all. Personally as much as we miss Craigslist, the exploitation was definitely rampant on that site. With the way the new laws have been written it's not worth the risk. What's the alternative or options?
While I ABSOLUTELY support the eradication of child porn and sex trafficking I think Facebook and other sites' approach might be extreme. I think they're trying to take the easy way out and rather than police their own sites they would rather just get rid of ALL sex-related content. Censorship is censorship. And I can't help but wonder how much of this is related to some of the current political attitudes in this country.
Too bad there isn't enough "potential legal fall out" to get them to ban much of the hateful (often entirely false) political comments rampant on those sites...or bullying.
EVILDOERS wrote:The Russians pay too well
Too bad there isn't enough "potential legal fall out" to get them to ban much of the hateful (often entirely false) political comments rampant on those sites...or bullying.
!It's all due to FOSTA/SESTA: ButFOSTA-SESTA creates an exception to Section 230 that means website publishers would be responsible if third parties are found to be posting ads for prostitution — including consensual sex work — on their platforms. The goal of this is supposed to be that policing online prostitution rings gets easier. What FOSTA-SESTA has actually done, however, is create confusion and immediate repercussions among a range of internet sites as they grapple with the ruling’s sweeping language.
The bill’s language penalizes any websites that “promote or facilitate prostitution,” and allows authorities to pursue websites for “knowingly assisting, facilitating, or supporting sex trafficking,” which is vague enough to threaten everything from certain cryptocurrencies to porn videos to sites for perfectly legal escort services. (In fact, one of the bill’s main supporters, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, is arguably using the bill as a path to attack consensual adult pornography, which it has characterized as “violent,“ “degrading,” and “a public health crisis.”)
The bill’s language penalizes any websites that “promote or facilitate prostitution,” and allows authorities to pursue websites for “knowingly assisting, facilitating, or supporting sex trafficking,” which is vague enough to threaten everything from certain cryptocurrencies to porn videos to sites for perfectly legal escort services. (In fact, one of the bill’s main supporters, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, is arguably using the bill as a path to attack consensual adult pornography, which it has characterized as “violent,“ “degrading,” and “a public health crisis.”)
PANDORASLC wrote:
It's all due to FOSTA/SESTA: ButFOSTA-SESTA creates an exception to Section 230 that means website publishers would be responsible if third parties are found to be posting ads for prostitution — including consensual sex work — on their platforms. The goal of this is supposed to be that policing online prostitution rings gets easier. What FOSTA-SESTA has actually done, however, is create confusion and immediate repercussions among a range of internet sites as they grapple with the ruling’s sweeping language.
The bill’s language penalizes any websites that “promote or facilitate prostitution,” and allows authorities to pursue websites for “knowingly assisting, facilitating, or supporting sex trafficking,” which is vague enough to threaten everything from certain cryptocurrencies to porn videos to sites for perfectly legal escort services. (In fact, one of the bill’s main supporters, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, is arguably using the bill as a path to attack consensual adult pornography, which it has characterized as “violent,“ “degrading,” and “a public health crisis.”)
YUP!
SESTA/FOSTA
So does this mean that people offering services, on a swinger's dating site, with the possibility of sex included with the service is a potential violation of SESTA/FOSTA?
DELICIOUSLYWET wrote:
So does this mean that people offering services, on a dating site, with the possibility of sex included with the service is a potential violation of SESTA/FOSTA?
Yes, at least the way I read the law. And I've also been wondering this after seeing some of the ads for certain services here on Swingular. It will be interesting to see what ADMIN does or doesn't do in that regard if they think it might draw unwanted scrutiny because the language in this bill seems, imo, unnecessarily broad.
One of the reasons I find this interesting and somewhat concerning is that when we first started in the lifestyle many cities (and a few states) enacted, or tried to enact, laws and ordinances regarding sexually oriented businesses that had very broad language and they used those laws to shut down a number of swing clubs.
EVILDOERS wrote:[/i]DELICIOUSLYWET wrote:
So does this mean that people offering services, on a dating site, with the possibility of sex included with the service is a potential violation of SESTA/FOSTA?
Yes, at least the way I read the law. And I've also been wondering this after seeing some of the ads for certain services here on Swingular. It will be interesting to see what ADMIN does or doesn't do in that regard if they think it might draw unwanted scrutiny because the language in this bill seems, imo, unnecessarily broad.
One of the reasons I find this interesting and somewhat concerning is that when we first started in the lifestyle many cities (and a few states) enacted, or tried to enact, laws and ordinances regarding sexually oriented businesses that had very broad language and they used those laws to shut down a number of swing clubs.
I tend to agree! I think that if someone post a booty call, looking to hook up that says they give great massages, it is different than offering some sort of special massage, or massage class, as an incentive, or even what the broad language might suggest could be interpreted as an incentive for sex. The same would seem probable for photography, plumbing, cleaning out your gutters. If it is obvious that the booty call or profile is a couple or individual looking for sexual partners, with no exchange or compensation in cash, goods or services other than sexual companionship, then it would be hard to construe any association with prostitution. So, in order to protect our access to online swinging hook-ups, perhaps it's best we lean toward caution. Make it obvious we are here to make friends and maybe find lovers, with no exchange of cash, products or services as compensation.
EVILDOERS wrote:We have never understood why so many people are fearful of sex and swinging in particular? It seems time after time a club is shut down because of one reason or another.
Yes, at least the way I read the law. And I've also been wondering this after seeing some of the ads for certain services here on Swingular. It will be interesting to see what ADMIN does or doesn't do in that regard if they think it might draw unwanted scrutiny because the language in this bill seems, imo, unnecessarily broad.
One of the reasons I find this interesting and somewhat concerning is that when we first started in the lifestyle many cities (and a few states) enacted, or tried to enact, laws and ordinances regarding sexually oriented businesses that had very broad language and they used those laws to shut down a number of swing clubs.
Utahldscouple wrote:EVILDOERS wrote:We have never understood why so many people are fearful of sex and swinging in particular? It seems time after time a club is shut down because of one reason or another.
Yes, at least the way I read the law. And I've also been wondering this after seeing some of the ads for certain services here on Swingular. It will be interesting to see what ADMIN does or doesn't do in that regard if they think it might draw unwanted scrutiny because the language in this bill seems, imo, unnecessarily broad.
One of the reasons I find this interesting and somewhat concerning is that when we first started in the lifestyle many cities (and a few states) enacted, or tried to enact, laws and ordinances regarding sexually oriented businesses that had very broad language and they used those laws to shut down a number of swing clubs.
If non-monogamy wasn't considered immoral by a fairly large portion of the population, then there would be no real need for swing sites. Non-monogamous people would just hook up with other non-monogamous people they share a connection with. If we could just openly ask other adults if they are or are not monogamous, with no fear of any negative consequences, then why would there need to be a swinger's site?
It seems that the theocratic power structure keeps trying to create a community exclusive to their vision of Zion through the acquisition of real estate. City Creek being their latest venture. It never really works, since fair housing laws make it impossible for anyone to completely eliminate people from buying property not of their faith. Certain communities do seem to gravitate toward certain neighborhoods. Once hipsters, for example start to move into a low price neighborhood, little by little businesses start to arrive that cater to their taste. The thought is that once you start to see the night life, or even the lack thereof, start to reflect certain taste in a neighborhood, then the property becomes more desirable to people who share the same taste. If the people the neighborhood attracts have money to spend the property values go up. I don't know. If swingers started to buy properties in a particular neighborhood, in numbers sufficient, that it affected the community's cash flow, then would it be possible, that the local cafes, coffee shops, bars and such might not all become somewhat swinger friendly without really say it? I know that I have been asked by gay men in a coffee shop, and in the Smith's in the 9th and 9th neighborhood of Salt Lake City if I am gay, and the gentlemen never seem at all worried about asking the question, nor offended when I tell them I am not. The surrounding neighborhood is a bit friendlier to the LGBT community than much of the rest of the city. I don't think a question like that is always a pick up line, but it is a valid question as a point of reference. Why shouldn't someone be able to ask a question like that? If the LGBT community has some areas of town, that are somewhat more of a comfortable safe space, then why not the non-monogamous? Is that happening anywhere?
Except this is a federal law causing the grief instead of a Zion based legislation! We would expect it here in Utah.
If you don’t want to participate the best energy is playing right next to the other couple
Tntryan05 wrote:
If you don’t want to participate the best energy is playing right next to the other couple
Huh?