US Administration Fights to Protect Human Trafficking and Disinformation Platforms

The U.S. already has a reputation for its lax approach to infrastructure regulation that “encouraged the spread of disinformation and supported a powerful forum for harassment and bullying”.

Current occupants of the White House are taking that even further.

American infrastructure is said to be getting legal protections against accountability pushed on foreign trade deals, known as adding in Section 230.

Last year, Congress overwhelmingly approved a bill making it possible to sue online platforms for knowingly facilitating sex trafficking. Lawmakers have raised the prospect of creating additional carve-outs for the online sale of opioids. Critics of Section 230 say they are alarmed by the inclusion of its provisions in trade deals.

In other words despite representatives in U.S. government working to protect the world from clear and documented harms, the White House is headed in an opposite direction by trying to instead protect criminal behavior such as child trafficking operating in the U.S..

This relates directly to other recent news that the American cloud service providers often are abused by men operating them to victimize women and children around the world.

Studies repeatedly show “it’s disproportionately women who are targeted” using cloud services and enslaved.

Seventy-six percent of trafficked persons are girls and women and the Internet is now a major sales platform.

Epstein no longer being protected by powerful American men, found dead in his cell and quickly forgotten, may actually mean he was replaced by technology…and that’s why now it is being made untouchable instead of him.

By allowing lawsuits to proceed as one would normally expect, a court would be able to deliberate and find the right balance between freedoms of expression and clear cases of harm.

“The use of Twitter by the defendants to post allegedly defamatory statements cannot subject the plaintiff to the terms of use agreement and the forum selection clause as it would not subject a plaintiff who did not have a Twitter account to the terms of use agreement,” the ruling states.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.