Talk:FOSTA-SESTA

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Internet Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. inactive .OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles

	Law Mid‑importance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

U.S. Congress Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) thing(s).

A fact from FOSTA-SESTA appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 September 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the proposed Section 230 safe harbors? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/September.

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

According to the Senate's website^[1] 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)

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]