Talk:FOSTA-SESTA

Senate vote

Does the date when this will happen get announced in advance? ScratchMarshall --(talk) 23:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

According to the Senate's website this already passed the Senate and is supposedly on its way too, or already in the hands of POTUS. Not sure why gov track has not updated the information. --Pirhounix 21:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Questionable Neutrality

The neutrality of the article seems quite questionable to me. For one, the “criticism” section is much, much longer and more detailed than the “support” section, despite the bill’s many supporters. Furthermore, the “response” section essentially states that the critics were right about the bill, even though it acknowledges that such evidence is only anecdotal. It’s my opinion that the article clearly takes a stance a opposing the bill and thus does not fit the site’s neutrality guidelines.Jogarz1921 (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"Many supporters? Who supports this law, and how many of them have the same talking points already listed? ViperSnake151  Talk  19:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia expectation is that, if you feel that there is too much criticism vs. support, or too much support vs. criticism, on an article then you should find sources that have the views that you think are unrepresented, and add them to the page.

Also please take note, that "the bill has many supporters" is entirely irrelevant to your argument about a lack of neutrality. Even if there were some kind of count of how many people do or do not support the bill, that is not how anyone should decide what information goes in the support/criticism section. The bodies which do or do not support the legislation, and the arguments they present for their pro/con positions, should be provided in an encyclopedic fashion. It's as simple as that. If you believe there is more relevant information to be documented in the support section, document it. But do not expect anyone to reduce the criticism section to create a false balance. CleverTitania (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

No mention of opposition from sex workers?

The criticism section does not include any information about the massive criticism of the bill by those in the sex industry. Sex workers have argued that the bill will do nothing to reduce trafficking and in fact would make it harder to find traffickers all while putting them at significantly greater risk due to loss of advertising venues and verification sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.109.131 (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

result:
Moved per survey below. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 05:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act → FOSTA-SESTA – It is most commonly known as FOSTA-SESTA, not Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA). Moreover, the actual bill when passed was called "Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act" (FOSTA) but the media and most people referred to it as "FOSTA-SESTA". Llightex (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.