A Shutdown of This Forum?

[marylander1940]

What makes you think he has any desire to relocate overseas?

 

Survival... Not sure if you noticed but a lot of folks work from home using something called computer . Daddy (or) his servers could be overseas.

 

I don't know maybe it's just me but isn't life better when you have an alternative plan and you wonder why would I do IF things change instead of just hoping for the best?

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by marylander1940

[Kevin Slater]

 

 

Who you calling Nancy?

 

Kevin Slater

[+ ArVaGuy]

Since Congress is on break until April 9, 2018, it sure seems like Trump has exercised the pocket veto.

 

I wonder if there is some debate over whether this mid-session break is a true break or not.

 

I don't think this legislation has officially been sent to the president for signature according to congress.gov.

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865

 

Therefore the pocket veto clock is not not ticking at this time.

[+ tassojunior]

SESTA presented to Trump today. He has 10 days to sign, not including Sundays.

 

https://adultbizlaw.com/2018/04/05/fosta-now-with-trump-for-signature/

 

By some procedure Congress held the bill until today 4/5, timing it to go to Trump at a certain time.

 

Most likely they wanted to get a large signing ceremony prepared. They're gonna milk this like Stormy with a thousand dollar trick.

 

https://adultbizlaw.com/2018/04/05/waiting-on-fosta-fosta-watch-day15/

[bostonman]

Open a new forum / platform using Tor

 

0.02$

 

I’m a newbie to the idea of the so-called “dark web” - but from what I’ve been trying to read about it, it does not sound like a place for a novice. Can we be sure a Tor site would be safe to visit? (For us, I mean - not meaning if the site would be safe from Big Brother.)

[bostonman]

SESTA presented to Trump today. He has 10 days to sign, not including Sundays.

 

https://adultbizlaw.com/2018/04/05/fosta-now-with-trump-for-signature/

 

By some procedure Congress held the bill until today 4/5, timing it to go to Trump at a certain time.

 

Most likely they wanted to get a large signing ceremony prepared. They're gonna milk this like Stormy with a thousand dollar trick.

 

https://adultbizlaw.com/2018/04/05/waiting-on-fosta-fosta-watch-day15/

 

Just so twisted that this bill may be about to be signed by a president whose affair with a porn star is huge current news. Will the president even WANT to sign a bill that may, by extension, curtail aspects of internet porn?

 

Maybe he should make a deal with Stormy about this...

[rossthebosssf]

This whole situation reminds me of the scene from the Titanic. I feel like we're the remaining musicians carrying on the music until the ship goes down. Dark, I know, but it's what I started thinking today.

[Aaron_Bauder]

This whole situation reminds me of the scene from the Titanic. I feel like we're the remaining musicians carrying on the music until the ship goes down. Dark, I know, but it's what I started thinking today.

 

Yeah in terms of my own business, things are pretty dire. All of my income right now is from regulars -- not enough to cover bills. But I'm viewing it as an sign to get out of escorting. Not going down with this ship, I'm building a life boat from these deck chairs.

[Guy Fawkes]

It is against the rules on this site (m4m-forum.org) to post reviews.

 

The first amendment is tricky. I can see this site remaining, but being extremely toned down. Like no detailed reviews, or reviews that are extremely detailed but don’t include contact information, so they can say their not promoting illegal activities.

[biggerbilly]

It is against the rules on this site (m4m-forum.org) to post reviews.

Sorry, was combining this forum and DaddyReviews. I'm mainly talking about Daddy in that post.

[+ stevenkesslar]

https://www.lawfareblog.com/fosta-new-anti-sex-trafficking-legislation-may-not-end-internet-its-not-good-law-either

 

Like many I've now read dozens and dozens of articles on the law. The above is one of the best I've read. It hyperlinks to other good information, it gives a good history of how the law got shaped, and in particular it does a good job describing the ambiguities in the law as enacted. This line in particular stands out:

"The language is confusing, especially the “knowing facilitation” standard, which makes it hard to imagine that state and local prosecutors will be eager to expend scarce resources on enforcement. Even the Justice Department voiced concerns about the bill in a letter to Goodlatte."

 

Let me use an example, as I read it. If I post on Facebook that I hired a masseur yesterday and got a happy ending, does that mean Facebook is "knowingly facilitating" prostitution? Is a masseur giving you a happy ending "prostitution?" And even if it is, is Facebook responsible for knowingly facilitating it just because I bragged online about how hot it was?

 

I think that line captures the fact that a lot of lawyers and judges are going to spend a lot of time figuring that out. Hopefully, state and local law enforcement will "expend scare resources" on what the bill was primarily intended to do: go after big online "sex traffickers," not individual online masseurs. But we'll see.

 

The other thing that article talks about is the Internet Association - the power players - switched to support the bill when the words facilitating "by any means" were taken out. So now there is this assumption that the legal standard is still pretty high as to what you have to prove. What seems to pass the smell test more, like with Backpage, is that they made millions of dollars "knowingly" on ads that sex trafficked minors. It was already illegal under 18 USC 1591 to knowingly benefit from such ads. Now that is redefined to "knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating" such advertising. Some people against FOSTA argued the legal standard to prove that could now actually be higher. Nobody knows until it goes to the judges. And the reality so far is that multiple judges threw out cases against Backpage, in part because of the CDA, but also in part because of the First Amendment.

 

So back to my happy ending masseur. If states go after Facebook for that, and judges rule that Facebook is advertising illegal things, you may as well pull out the plug and shut down the internet now. If they leave it be, and just decide it's some guy enjoying his freedom of speech on the internet, that's a whole different thing. I can't imagine why DOJ would concern themselves with the latter.

 

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4390361/Views-Ltr-Re-H-R-1865-Allow-States-and-Victims.pdf

 

One final thing. Don't take my word for it. Ask DOJ. The line that jumps out at me is at the top of Page 2. DOJ tells the people writing the law there would be "minimal federal interest" in instances like when "an individual uses a cell phone to manage local commercial sex transactions involving consenting adults." So back to my happy ending masseur. I suppose that could mean he's using his cell phone to call a client. But it could probably also mean he's using his cell phone to manage his website, or his account on some aggregate masseur website. And then the question for that masseur website is what's "commercial sex" and what's "knowing facilitation?" What DOJ seems to be saying is they want to fry big fish, like Backpage, and they have "minimal interest" in our happy ending masseur, what people might say about him on Facebook, or what he might say on his masseur ad.

[+ peterhung85]

Open a new forum / platform using Tor

 

0.02$

Yes, exactly. It does not require a whole lot of new skills to acquire for most people to learn how to use such "new technology" and Daddy could sleep without any worries. Everybody just bookmarks the new onion link and problem solved!

 

Daddy is tech-savvy, so it should not cause much of a headache to him anyway... completely agree!

[+ stevenkesslar]

Yes, exactly. It does not require a whole lot of new skills to acquire for most people to learn how to use such "new technology" and Daddy could sleep without any worries. Everybody just bookmarks the new onion link and problem solved!

 

Daddy is tech-savvy, so it should not cause much of a headache to him anyway... completely agree!

 

I know nothing about the Dark Web and I am not internet savvy. So educate me.

 

Here's the first article I got when I Googled Tor:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/how-to-access-the-dark-web-a7047041.html

 

So they kept mentioning Silk Road. And I kept thinking, isn't that the site they shut down?

 

"Shut down by the FBI in October 2013. Silk Road 2.0 shut down by FBI and Europol on 6 November 2014. Silk Road 3.0 went offline in 2017 due to loss of funds. Silk Road was an online black market and the first modern darknet market, best known as a platform for selling illegal drugs."

 

 

I'm an advocate of the "hiding in plain sight" option. If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. There's a First Amendment and freedom of speech. Engaging in freedom of speech is not doing anything wrong. If you go to the Dark Web, it seems like it could in itself be perceived as a smoking gun, which suggests you do have something to hide.

 

The article I hyperlinked says this: "The Dark Web positions itself as an almost lawless digital space where nearly anything goes. While you can find places on these sites in which real content and discussions are being had, things can get unsettling. Despite this, the Dark Web is important because it provides privacy and anonymity to users around the world."

 

I bold-faced "almost" because obviously it wasn't really lawless, or Silk Road would not have been seized.

 

I get the fact that it might have a particular appeal to those who place a high premium on the idea of privacy and personal liberty. But is there any reason to think that if I can access it, the government can't, too? If anything, I would think and hope they spend more time trying to infiltrate questionable websites on the Dark Web than they do on the "normal" Web???

[+ peterhung85]

I know nothing about the Dark Web and I am not internet savvy. So educate me.

 

Here's the first article I got when I Googled Tor:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/how-to-access-the-dark-web-a7047041.html

 

So they kept mentioning Silk Road. And I kept thinking, isn't that the site they shut down?

 

"Shut down by the FBI in October 2013. Silk Road 2.0 shut down by FBI and Europol on 6 November 2014. Silk Road 3.0 went offline in 2017 due to loss of funds. Silk Road was an online black market and the first modern darknet market, best known as a platform for selling illegal drugs."

 

 

I'm an advocate of the "hiding in plain sight" option. If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. There's a First Amendment and freedom of speech. Engaging in freedom of speech is not doing anything wrong. If you go to the Dark Web, it seems like it could in itself be perceived as a smoking gun, which suggests you do have something to hide.

 

The article I hyperlinked says this: "The Dark Web positions itself as an almost lawless digital space where nearly anything goes. While you can find places on these sites in which real content and discussions are being had, things can get unsettling. Despite this, the Dark Web is important because it provides privacy and anonymity to users around the world."

 

I bold-faced "almost" because obviously it wasn't really lawless, or Silk Road would not have been seized.

 

I get the fact that it might have a particular appeal to those who place a high premium on the idea of privacy and personal liberty. But is there any reason to think that if I can access it, the government can't, too? If anything, I would think and hope they spend more time trying to infiltrate questionable websites on the Dark Web than they do on the "normal" Web???

 

I think comparing Daddy's Forum with Silk Road is not even remotely in the same category so I won't even get into the comparison and explanation of what the differences are here ))

 

The discussion was more geared towards what a safer option (for both users and the person who provides the platform /Daddy/) would be.

You don't need to be tech savvy to access a site on Tor. Download the program (which is just another web browser) and enter the site address that can only be accessed while using that particular browser. Voila. That's all!

 

I don't think Daddy would want to go through all the "First amendment speech" with the Feds... and I don't think that if you were Daddy that you would want to either. You can be the righteous one in the room but IS IT WORTH IT?

[+ stevenkesslar]

I think comparing [this] Forum with Silk Road is not even remotely in the same category so I won't even get into the comparison and explanation of what the differences are here ))

 

That's actually my point. Silk Road was a dark web market for things like illegal drugs and guns. The moderator of this forum may own a handgun, but I think he purchased and owns it legally. If you go hang out in a place where illegal things occur, that can create a perception problem. But it doesn't stop the Feds from busting you if you are actually doing illegal things. I really don't know, which is why I asked. But I would guess that DOJ and the FBI pay particularly close attention to what happens on the dark web.

 

You are absolutely right, that I have no desire to spend any time on this, really. I mostly post in the politics forum, and I like spending my time and money on things like getting Democrats elected and debating with people who think Trump is great. So to me this isn't about being righteous. It's about survival. Wherever this forum is located on the web, the only reason to be concerned about the First Amendment is that I think we ought to be able to have freedom of speech and not have to worry about the government trying to silence us because of what we say.

 

Let me say it a positive way. One perfectly legal and admirable reason people can choose to go to the dark web is that they place a high value on civil liberties, or privacy, or libertarian thinking. That's why I quoted that part of the description of the dark web above: it "is important because it provides privacy and anonymity to users around the world." So if the idea is to go to the dark web because we want more privacy, and it's technically easy, I get that.

 

I think my point was that if I can download Tor, so can everyone. Did I mention that I actually work for the FBI, by the way, and that my purpose for being on this forum is to make sure that no illegal sex trafficking is occurring here? Just kidding. But I assume that anyone who wants to monitor any website, including and website on the dark web, can just come up with a profile, download Tor, and Viola! They are in.

 

Rentmen seems to have clearly decided that even though they are not legally domiciled in the United States, they are going to be a poster child for compliance with US laws. I think that's the smart thing to do. That's why I put that seizure notice up. It seems to say that if the US doesn't like what some company outside the US is doing, "hidden sites" can be seized by "European law enforcement agencies." And I'm not comparing Rentmen to Silk Road, either. I'm saying that Rentmen is smart for realizing they ought to be focused on compliance.

Edited April 9, 2018 by stevenkesslar

[Mocha]

But what about rentmen's brother, jock2go? They seem more lenient?

[+ tassojunior]

RentMen is like 1000 times more obvious than Backpage.

[+ FreshFluff]

I fondly remember learning BASIC on that machine.

 

Kevin Slater

 

Remember the manual?

[+ FreshFluff]

I’m a newbie to the idea of the so-called “dark web” - but from what I’ve been trying to read about it, it does not sound like a place for a novice. Can we be sure a Tor site would be safe to visit?

 

While you're there, may I interest you in an Uzi? If you buy two, I'll throw in an assassination for no charge.

[+ quoththeraven]

RentMen is like 1000 times more obvious than Backpage.

But it's much harder to associate with trafficking. The feds tried that with Rentboy and couldn't make it stick.

[+ tassojunior]

But it's much harder to associate with trafficking. The feds tried that with Rentboy and couldn't make it stick.

Do you mean its harder to find any underage escorts working there?

[Ajac]

I have long been torn on this issue. It is so complicated. On the one hand I of course do not support sex trafficking. But on the other hand such a bill is painted with a broad brush, everything these days is black or white with no shades of grey. Will cam sites be shut down as well? Tokens in exchange for acts performed. Then will porn sites all go? I never would hire anyone I felt was coherced into that line of work or for that fact anyone who who was supporting a drug habit on my payment. It is a profession that will always exist. I have said it before with weed becoming legal there needs to be a push to fill cells in our prison system that is now a big business. For every person forced into sex work there are as many who are caring people providing a valuable service who deserve compensation. I feel so bad for all the Washington pages who will suffer when it becomes harder for their bosses to find a sex worker. It is easier to go after the broad picture to look like they are doing something as opposed to going after powerful crime rings one by one.

[+ tassojunior]

http://sesta-fosta.com/

[+ quoththeraven]

Do you mean its harder to find any underage escorts working there?

Yes. For one thing, as I understand it, Rentmen does a form of age verification. For another, trafficking is less of a problem on the m4m side. It's also tough to tell from the ads for adults whether they're trafficked or not.

[BaronArtz]

But it's much harder to associate with trafficking. The feds tried that with Rentboy and couldn't make it stick.

 

The Feds' actions did shut down RB though. Mission accomplished as far as they are concerned. Did the head RB guy go to jail, in the end? I lost track.

Edited April 11, 2018 by BaronArtz