Venture capitalists abhor uncertainty, and the potentially broad interpretation of this law’s changes to the liability statutes could very quickly result in an evaporated pool of available capital.Įven bigger tech companies aren’t immune from potentially ruinous litigation under SESTA. New startups looking to engage the Internet community are less likely to acquire funding for their ventures if content their users generate results in bankruptable civil suits.
To start, it opens the door to immense uncertainty while closing off opportunities for budding innovators. Thus, current law can effectively address the sex trafficking issue, but SESTA would have far-reaching and potentially catastrophic results for the rest of the Internet. The company has repeatedly used Section 230 as a shield from liability for the actions of its users, but recent evidence has come to light suggesting its actions don’t qualify it for those protections because it actively engaged in facilitating the criminal activity in question. The legislation appears to be aimed at, which has been under investigation for acting as a channel for human trafficking. SESTA would upend that safe harbor provision, ensuring Section 230 no longer applies that liability exemption to websites that benefit “from participation in a venture” that could be linked to sex trafficking. That means that tech companies, big and small, are not civilly liable for the content posted by their users and that accusations of criminal liability are to be prosecuted at the federal, not state, level. The bill would make a number of changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides limited liability protections for websites that serve as platforms for user-generated content.
It won’t stop sex trafficking - a worthy goal we should all share - but it might eviscerate the Internet ecosystem. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) released the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 (SESTA).
0 kommentar(er)
