Category: Articles

Airbnb and the French government team up to target sex workers ahead of the Olympics

By: Zee Xaymaca

Airbnb and French authorities have announced a collaboration to curtail the presence of sex workers in Paris ahead of the Olympics, a reflection of growing prohibitionism around sex work in France. 

Introduction

In the lead up to the Paris Olympics, Airbnb announced a partnership with French authorities to prevent the use of Airbnb properties for sex work. Details are light on the nature of this collaboration. Airbnb’s “Responsible Traveler’s Guide”, linked to in a May 3rd 2024 press release that has since been removed from the site, highlights that prostitution is an offense and encourages travelers to report “victims” to authorities. This policy is concerning because it urges further surveillance of persons suspected of engaging in sex work despite opposition to this approach from sex worker led human rights organizations. It is a harbinger of closer scrutiny in an environment where scrutiny leads to persecution of persons who are already vulnerable to the state. The announced collaboration between Airbnb and the French government is a result of increasingly prohibitionist policies toward prostitution. The rhetoric around this collaboration gives key insights into the pitfalls of France’s tacit conflation of sex work and human trafficking to justify repressive policies even when they attempt to differentiate between the two. This article explores the collaboration in the context of the French government’s doubling down on its mandate to eliminate sex work and shift perceptions of sex work to one that denies sex workers’ agency. The co-opting of human rights language, attempts to misrepresent sex workers’  needs and narratives, and the enlistment of private sector organizations like Airbnb are in alignment with prevailing prohibitionist and ‘rescue’ policies.

French Policy on sex work and human trafficking

Through the twentieth century, French policy on sex work has grown increasingly regulationary.  Regulation of workers by relegating them to designated brothels, gave way to outright criminalization of sex workers. In 1946, France passed Law No. 46-685, or the Marthe Richard law that led to the closure of 1400 brothels within months. This law also prohibited procurement and holding of sex workers’ records by authorities, but crucially, the Marthe Richard  law did not outlaw prostitution. It sought to hide it.  In the face of stricter regulations, sex workers maintained their autonomy through independent safety structures, by working in groups, forming collectives, and implementing screening procedures that depended on community to keep each other safe. Regulationist policies turned prohibitionist in 1960, when France ratified the Convention on the Suppression of Trafficking and the Exploitation of Prostitution. Between 1960 and 2016, local French governments implemented laws criminalizing ‘active’ and ‘passive’ solicitation, benefiting from sex work as a third party, and other aspects of the industry.

 In 2016, France formally adopted the Nordic Model, an “end demand” approach to sex work in an attempt to curtail prostitution and human trafficking for exploitation in sex trade.  The 2016 law  “aiming to strengthen the fight against the prostitution system and to support prostituted persons” is far reaching with implications for social services, professional training, immigration enforcement,  and criminal law. In 2016, the government instituted a fine for the purchase of sex, while removing the penalty to sex workers for  solicitation. 

The provisions of the 2016 law

In this law the French government authorized the creation of  prostitution exit programs to be run by local authorities, regional associations and government agencies including the National Police, Border Police the National Gendarmerie, and the Inter-ministerial Mission for the Protection of Women Against Violence and to Fight Human Trafficking (Mission interministérielle pour la protection des femmes contre les violences et la lutte contre la traite des êtres humains) or MIPROF. Government agencies like MIPROF provide training on how to identify and intervene in situations of trafficking, guide the application of policy on sex work and  trafficking and administer state sponsored “rescue” programs that target sex workers. These rescue programs mandate that “a pathway to exit from prostitution and to social inclusion and employability is proposed to each person who is a victim of prostitution, of pimping and of the trafficking in human beings for sexual exploitation”. Its provisions include a temporary residency program for migrant sex workers who declare to rescue organizations that they have left prostitution. This provision grants a six month stay that can be renewed up to a maximum of two years. While in an exit program, the overseeing body and the sponsoring association ensures that the person receiving assistance maintains their commitments, including the commitment to leave prostitution. 

This requirement that participants in this program must convince authorities that they have stopped sex work in order to access the law’s provisions is often unfeasible as there is a lag between stopping sex work and qualifying for assistance if one is determined eligible by the oversight body. The residency permit is available to a sex worker who is a “victim of the offences [of pimping,  prostitution or trafficking for sexual exploitation] who, having ceased the activity of prostitution, is engaged in the pathway to exit from prostitution”. Once renewals to  the six-month residency permit are exhausted after two years, there is no path to permanent residency or citizenship based on participation in diversion programs. The participant becomes at risk of deportation once more and finds themselves identified officially as having done sex work– a categorization that many sex workers wish to avoid.

The law requires that a sex worker  renounce their agency to meet state requirements for housing, welfare, temporarily regularized immigration status while participating in the exit program, and some legal protection. Ultimately, the person in question must leave their work to be dependent on the whims of local government, a concerning proposition considering France’s recent immigration bill. In 2023, the French far right championed a restrictive immigration law that attempted to revoke the policy of automatic citizenship for persons born on French soil to foreign parents, make it easier to deport migrants, restrict family reunification and migrants’ access to welfare.  Thirty two provisions were struck down by the French Constitutional Council on procedural grounds. These censured articles were not struck down because these provisions were unconstitutional and so they can be reintroduced as part of other legislation. Only three articles were censured on constitutional grounds. Fifty-one articles of the immigration bill were passed by the National Assembly in January 2024 despite robust public opposition to the law. In this political climate, it is difficult to attain a sense of safety in identifying oneself as a migrant sex worker to a government that has already made it clear that belonging to either of those categories is less than desirable. 

Airbnb’s policy on sex work and human trafficking

Airbnb holds a long-standing anti-sex work policy. Currently  Airbnb explicitly forbids In-call sex work and procuring the services of a sex worker while using their service. Airbnb will de-register suspected sex workers and their close associates, regardless of whether they use the platform to facilitate their work. In their Illegal and Prohibited Activities section the short term rental platform does differentiate between human trafficking and sex work (forbidding both), only to resort to subtly conflating the two in another statement entitled How to help stop human trafficking when describing signs of “sex trafficking” that would alert concerned persons to involve law enforcement. These signs include

•     Listing address is referenced in online ads for commercial sex

•     Reports of frequent unauthorized guests at varying hours.

•     Excessive amounts of sex paraphernalia in listing

•     Presence of commercial hardware set up for a video/photo shoot

https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/3275

These conditions do not necessarily indicate “sex trafficking” but may be met by persons using their rental for sex work, for which Airbnb suggests reporting the person to local human trafficking hotlines. A tacit blurring of the difference between sex work and human trafficking is key to justifying targeting sex workers under the guise of trafficking prevention. Though Airbnb differentiates between human trafficking and sex work, their approach to the two phenomena is essentially the same. Such policies rely on Airbnb’s extensive guest data collection, including financial information, biometrics, legal records, and device tracking information. The information Airbnb collects puts guests at risk of unduly invasive profiling and arbitrary suspension from the platform, posing privacy and discrimination concerns for sex workers and non-sex workers alike. 

#

As a US based company, Airbnb is partial to the US’ preoccupation with criminalization of sex work and conflating it with trafficking. The US’ stance is exemplified by SESTA/FOSTA, a law that claims to have set out to curtail the online facilitation and promotion of “unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims.” but in practice expanded the mandate for online platforms to surveil their users or face liability for “Promotion of prostitution and reckless disregard of sex trafficking”. The conflation of sex work and sex trafficking is a cornerstone of  the bill which ultimately became law in 2018.

#

While spokespersons deny that it is being used to target sex workers, Airbnb has acquired Trooly, a tech startup that predicts the platform’s users’ trustworthiness by scanning their online presence for ‘background checks’. This startup, was marketed to “peer to peer marketplaces financial institutions, marketers and recruiters.”  Financial institutions have also been notoriously hostile and exclusionary toward sex workers. Unsurprisingly, persons involved in sex work and pornography fall into Trooly’s untrustworthy category, giving credence to reports of Airbnb account suspension for simply being associated with sex work. 

What is known about the Airbnb-France collaboration

Airbnb, like its project partners,  is careful to frame its approach to sex work in human rights terms by using the term “trafficking”. They highlight that “people of color, migrants and people who identify as LGBTQ+ are more likely to be exploited… and face trafficking” as a result of “current and historic discrimination and inequity”. This framing is, on the face, unobjectionable, if not for the fact that trafficking and sex work are later conflated and that the authorities are implicated in the perpetuation of the current and historic discrimination that makes human trafficking so insidious. For instance, reports by France 24’s News Wire highlight the concerns of sex workers and the NGOs that work with them over changes in police behavior, trending toward the targeting of migrant sex workers in certain parts of Paris through identification controls. These increased controls have led to sex workers being harassed, having their photos taken without their consent, having their documents destroyed, and therefore taking greater safety risks to avoid interactions with police. 

Sex workers in Paris’ Bellville neighborhood have decried  the targeting of sex workers that has been commonplace even before the Olympics became a consideration. Workers in Bellville still report police harassment in the forms of excessive controls, an indication of surveillance that has many concerned with its purpose. Initiatives like the Airbnb-France collaboration is based on the misconception that sporting events are a significant draw for non-local sex workers and “trafficking networks”. This misconception has been thoroughly debunked but remains nevertheless politically expedient for anti sex work groups, despite the fact that Clément Eulry, director of Airbnb France and Belgium admits that “reports [of human trafficking] remain very rare on the platform”.

Big Picture: The effect of the French government’s crackdown on sex workers

The anti-sex work movement and conservatives have set their sights on eroding any gains in sex workers right to work. One potent tool for doing so is shaping public opinion which the French government has made part of its mandate by ensuring that secondary school students are taught about the “Information on the reality of prostitution and the dangers of the commercialisation of the body”. The result is a spreading belief in the prohibitionist talking point that sex workers are not free. Their prohibitionist programs are painted as an alternative to the potential harms of the sex trades as they exist under criminalization, overlooking sex workers’ assertion that a major harm is the criminalization of sex work and sex workers’ lives. The 2016 law is not simply a criminalization of sex buyers but an attempt to make sex work increasingly difficult to do safely.  Christine, a French sex worker and long time sex worker’s rights activist, points out that under the 2016 anti-prostitution law “When they began speaking about the law, they spoke like clients are sexual criminals. We saw good clients less and less. The good clients were really anxious”. When asked how sex workers adapted to the 2016 law, she responded “they lowered the price”. 

Combining corporate and government resources ought to be concerning as both entities have a vested interest in collecting information about those deemed ‘problematic’. The French government’s support for the anti-trafficking initiative with Airbnb will facilitate the sharing of private information about Airbnb customers. A cursory search of “sex work on Airbnb” gives a trove of results where persons speculate about their guests’ activities and how to erase the presence of sex workers from the platform. Ostensibly, the partnership aims to make that erasure more likely. 

Today, migrant sex workers fear the increased  crackdowns ahead of the Paris Olympics. Tellingly, this crackdown also targets unhoused persons, drug users, and migrants who do not engage in sex work. The Other Side of The Medal, a collective of organizations aiming to bring light to the human rights implications of major sport events, chastised the French and local Parisian government’s attempt to cover up the strain on publicly available resources like housing by expelling those rounded up in raids and checks to areas outside of Paris.

Current policies do not maximize effectiveness at curtailing human trafficking, which Airbnb France’s director agrees is rare on the platform. This partnership promises to address the nonexistent phenomena of an influx of sex workers during sporting events, but in fact, will continue after the Olympics and is billed as a long term collaboration.  In reality, it is yet another way that the government and private sector actors seek to restrict the autonomy of those who do not conform to prevailing standards of social desirability. 

Christine points out that the 2016 anti prostitution law, as written, “was immigration control”. In our conversation she explained  “It’s a way to clean the street… The spirit of the law was that sex workers are victims, they are poor girls. Before they were guilty. With the law they are not guilty anymore. You are a victim and we have to protect you”.  Persons in exit programs are given 300 EUR per month, while unemployed French citizens receive 425 EUR per month in government benefits, making it unlikely that French citizens would opt for the offer of financial assistance under an exit program. Christine adds that to qualify for the exit program a person must overcome several unwritten barriers. “You have to say you are a sex worker, it will be on your papers and they don’t want more migrants in France”.

 Among the barriers is the fact that not every city has created the mandated commission to oversee exit from sex work. These commissions are tasked with administering the temporary residency permit, granting of which depends on the participant convincing oversight associations that they have not engaged in sex work during the program. “There are not many places and you have to be a good candidate. It’s a lot of work. You have to go to the commission, the police… You have to show that okay I did sex work but I’m so shameful”, Christine explains. Migrant sex workers, who often work on the street, are made particularly vulnerable by the provisions of the anti-prostitution law and immigration reform. 

The French government seems to assume that sex work can be eliminated, despite all evidence to the contrary.  Failing that, they have opted for erasure. Human rights defenders have been raising the alarm about how French cities handle the presence of sex worker populations. The government must craft their justifications and approaches to hide the harm that is being perpetuated by “end demand” policies. Christine asserts  “It’s important to say we are not slaves. We are doing sex work for our reasons” in an echo of the sentiments expressed by sex workers the world over. With the conflation of trafficking and sex work, the disingenuous presentation of their “end demand” program, and their intended long term collaboration with the private sector to advance their mandate, the French government attempts to upend systems sex workers put in place to keep themselves safe without offering a meaningful and realistic response to the dangers created by policy. 

Queer and Trans Ugandans combat state violence in the Anti-Homosexuality Act.

Introduction

Uganda inherited its hostility to homosexuality from British Colonial law. As a result Uganda is now one of the many former colonies that perpetuate harm against Trans persons (particularly women) by criminalizing gender non-conforming persons and persons who engage in sex work (one of few viable options for Trans persons to earn wages in Uganda), as well as their allies. Uganda’s policy has caused an increase in gender based violence which has disrupted utilization and access to basic sexual health services including HIV prevention programs. 

Ugandan Trans Rights activist, Beyonce Karungi, has organized on the ground in Uganda for over 15 years. This article is written by Beyonce Karungi, Toyin Gayle-Sutherland, and  Zee Xaymaca. The report is informed by Beyonce’s experience and reports from Trans women who reside and work in Uganda.  Hope and resilience are key, however Trans women, many of whom identify as sex workers, have had to get creative about meeting their needs under a hostile regime.

The Problem

This Act criminalizes same sex conduct of any kind with the potential of prison time, fines, and, for repeat offences, the death penalty.

On May 29, 2023, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni signed into effect the Anti-Homosexuality Act.  This Act criminalizes same sex conduct of any kind with the potential of prison time, fines, and, for repeat offences, the death penalty.  The law stipulates that consent is irrelevant to prosecution and that persons who knowingly let their premises be used by others “for the purposes of homosexuality” commit an offence. It also levies harsh penalties for witnessing or presiding over a same sex wedding ceremony, advocating for recognition of LGBTQ+ rights or for rendering services or assistance to LGBTQ+ persons. 

This law departs from international standards for human rights in its onslaught against personal autonomy and the right to free association. Trans persons in Uganda now face barriers to accessing public transportation, gathering in community and earning wages, due to legal threats against one’s person. Crucially, individuals are not able to access health care services such as HIV testing, HIV treatments, Tuberculosis treatments and other vital public health interventions.  This has led to a reported rise in communicable diseases within vulnerable communities.

Targeting those who help the Trans community means that organizations in Uganda that operated as safe providers are now forced to turn their backs on Trans persons for fear of long prison sentences and hefty fines.

Despite great care taken in gender nonconforming sex worker communities, Individuals also face an increase in arrests, discrimination and police abuse, extortion, loss of employment and eviction from landlords because of their perceived sexual orientation since allyship is legally prohibited. Targeting those who help the Trans community means that organizations in Uganda that operated as safe providers are now forced to turn their backs on Trans persons for fear of long prison sentences and hefty fines. The Ugandan government has broken its commitments to many International human rights agreements including The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 

Uganda is a tough place to be an advocate. In addition to the Anti-Homosexuality Act, the government has restricted internet access and censored local media in an attempt to prevent uprisings. This measure means that advocates have a hard time keeping in touch with their communities and their allies outside Uganda. 

Assessing Solutions

The ease with which this Act came to pass is indicative of a deep seated hostility toward LGBTQ+ persons’ rights to freedom of expression, privacy, and non-discrimination.  The Ugandan government has refused to honor its obligation to protect all citizens from civil and human rights violations. However, there is little in the way of direct legislative action that can remedy the situation. The way the anti-homosexuality law is written means that any advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights is now illegal under the “promoting homosexuality” statutes. 

We are left with a sticky situation where those who need aid, and have been barred from accessing it due to their gender or sexual orientation will, regardless of sanctions, not have access to necessities. Meanwhile, many who need aid will face new barriers as a result of the sanctions.

Several large non-governmental organizations have cut financial aid to Uganda. The intent is often that the government will feel pressure from a disgruntled public in meeting its mandates and therefore change course. However, the Ugandan president has been adamant that he will not be swayed. We are left with a sticky situation where those who need aid, and have been barred from accessing it due to their gender or sexual orientation will, regardless of sanctions, not have access to necessities. Meanwhile, many who need aid will face new barriers as a result of the sanctions. There is admittedly little to be done individually in the way of direct action and the donor approach of cutting off funding, while understandable, is not without its harms. Beyonce encourages allies around the world to keep this atrocity in the headlines and sustain the outcry that has sprung up around it. Protesting, social media posts, and of course donations to organizations with ties to grassroots organizations are tools of solidarity with our Ugandan siblings. 

The Best Practices Policy Project is working with Beyonce Karungi to keep informed on the backlash against LGBTQ+ and Trans sex worker communities in various parts of Uganda. As circumstances deteriorate, we try to support grassroots organizations with resources that can help mitigate healthcare access issues, i.e. money for private transportation or higher service fees for Trans persons. It is our responsibility as onlookers to stand in solidarity with Ugandan LGBTQ+ persons, not just in the acute phase of these moments of persecution but over time as our siblings on the ground recreate their normalcy and mount their resistance. Donate to BPPP’s Uganda support fundraiser at https://secure.actblue.com/donate/uganda

Further reading

World Bank halts Loans to Uganda

Jerving S. Uganda’s “anti-homosexuality” bill already affecting care. Lancet. 2023 Apr 22;401(10385):1327-1328. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00814-0. PMID: 37088085. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37088085/


Full text of the Anti Homosexuality act https://www.parliament.go.ug/sites/default/files/The%20Anti-Homosexuality%20Act%2C%202023.pdf

Sex Worker Rights are Labor Rights (biting the hand)

This is real world advice about concrete issues. Change is very straightforward. For a long time BPPP has thought of sharing about what should change on a fundamental level in relationships between those who have and give money and the recipients. This is the first posting. We call this impromptu series “Biting the Hand (that did not feed us).” We know it is hard for those without funds to say anything to those in power because the fear of being defunded or systematically shut out of circles and opportunities is very great. We also internally police ourselves, concerned that if one group or person says something, the funding “opportunity” will be “ruined for everyone.” The reality is that the only reason that sources of funding and donations exist today is because of those who fought for recognition, payment, spaces and so much more. The ones who were and are a “problem.” We honor all such disruptors. And we thank you. We need to keep going to create the change we seek.

Today’s suggestion: sex worker rights are labor rights.

We received an email from a funder asking for us to fill out a survey to provide feedback on their funding guidelines. That is a great suggestion. The survey is a highly detailed set of ten questions. Once again, great. Dig deep. Change. The problem? Asking sex workers to do this work without payment and/or any social capital to build our renown. Our response is below, anonymized. To be clear we have received many such requests from funders to fill our surveys without compensation. We hope this is helpful for funders and others with cash to give out, in the future. No. No. We do not dance for free.

Dear Colleagues: We really want to help you but we cannot do this work unpaid. Nor can we ask any unpaid individual sex worker to do this.
We have already given many hours of our time helping [insert name of just about any funder globally] and we have raised this issue ever since [your fund started being interested in funding sex workers].
We looked over the survey, it requires our professional input as sex workers, fundraisers and organizers.
A funder [insert any of the following: dedicated to justice/labor rights/gender equality/set up in our name/working with sex workers] should model Sex Worker rights from the ground up. That would include paying Sex Workers their hourly rate for this labor. Sex Worker rights are human rights and labor rights. Pls live these values.
Pls [insert name of funder] and co, refrain from explaining all the reasons why [insert the name of any funder or donor] can’t pay Sex Workers as consultants. We already received those emails and we don’t need to read them again. We want [you, the funder] to change. And when [you, the funder] changes, pls publicly acknowledge the groups that pressured for this with a thank you. That helps us build, be acknowledged as the thought leaders we are and be acknowledged for the advocacy we have to do (amid the trauma of lack of funding). You did not come up with these ideas on your own, we developed these ideas and work-shopped so many ways to be clear when speaking to you. We and others like us had to take a risk to speak back to you. You might see us as the “angry ones who can’t be nice.” Yet we had to struggle to make you change: painfully many times we have had funders dismiss us to our face when we stated that our work is of equal value. We will be so happy when these attitudes change and you give us our due.
This is our feedback.
BPPP

Earn it

A guest post by Zee Xaymaca

The SWERFS are at it again, folks. 2022 has brought the latest in the onslaught against online privacy and sex workers’ rights. By now we know the drill; an innocuously named bill with heinous content is pushed through by the anti-sex work lobby under the guise of trafficking prevention. This season’s flavor of government overreach is back to a classic: interactive internet services and concerns about child welfare, in particular fears about “child pornography” or child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) . Enter the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act of 2022 or the EARN IT Act of 2022.

If the term ‘Interactive Technologies’ has you scratching your head a bit, that was intentional. The definition of these services is distressingly broad. What they are talking about is the Internet. An interactive technology is any technology that allows multiple people to connect to a single server. This includes both private and public communications; from web searches to messaging platforms. Any system that allows access to the Internet Even in libraries.

The EARN-IT Act sets the internet up as the domain of a new National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention. This Commission forms the crux of the bill. The EARN-IT Act provides for the creation of a 19-person commission that is expected to prescribe best practices for Interactive Internet Technologies in curtailing dissemination of CSAM. The commission consists of “(i) The Attorney General or his or her representative. (ii) The Secretary of Homeland Security or his or her representative. (iii) The Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission or his or her representative. 
The remaining 16 positions on the Commission are filled by various senate leaders and together must include persons with law enforcement experience, have prosecutorial experience, have experience with internet technologies and lived experience with trafficking, among other criteria.”

Conspicuously missing from this line-up are ‘people who have experience navigating the provision of online sexual products and services’, legal or otherwise. One may be inclined to think that sex workers’ wealth of experience in navigating the internet discreetly and safely would be a hot commodity in the bid to balance the right to privacy enshrined in the constitution and the mandate to root out abuse in online spaces… But I digress.

Armed with a broad mandate and broader reach, the EARN-IT act prescribes some changes off the bat in the form of amendments to previously passed legislation. This is where the mechanisms of the commission become clear. The legislation includes 14 mandates and several additional revisions to prior legislation, and some so troubling they bear explication here.

The commission is tasked with coordinating voluntary initiatives offered among and to providers of interactive computer services relating to identifying, categorizing, and reporting online child sexual exploitation. For sex workers and related communities this is chilling. This means that the commission is allowed to coordinate with our service providers to hand over our online activity to the federal government. Increased surveillance has yet to yield results in curtailing sexual abuse material. However it has proven chillingly effective as a means of policing the actions of private citizens acting within their rights. The onerous website verification standards arising from anti-trafficking legislation is a concrete example of the harm done by crusaders making unsubstantiated claims of widespread trafficking that demands this particular response.  While there is no evidence that requiring sex workers to provide national ID before working online has any effect on the trafficking it is aimed at, it is clear that it squeezes vulnerable sex workers, (POC, undocumented, disabled or otherwise unable to meet excessive requirements) out of the market. This essentially forced disclosure makes advertising online a precarious balance between maintaining anonymity which is necessary for legal and physical safety, and access to their income stream. This is an authorization for a massive data drag net, arguably to find evidence of child sexual abuse. Yet, there are no prescriptions for what to do with the rest of that non-evidence material. It does not address the matter of privacy for those surveilled nor the victims they claim to search for.

In addition to a public-private sector partnership, the commission is allowed to deputize non-profits. “NCMEC (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children)  may provide hash values or similar technical identifiers associated with visual depictions provided in a CyberTipline report or submission to the child victim identification program… to a non-profit entity for the sole and exclusive purpose of preventing and curtailing the online sexual exploitation of children.” Put in simple terms, submissions to the cyber sexual abuse tipline, a federal database, will be made available to nonprofits that are looking to ‘curtail trafficking’. 

The glaring issue here is that these “tips” do not need to be substantiated before individuals have their information and sexual material distributed to non-profits that have no clear regulations as to how the organizations operate or utilize them. However, the question still lingers, “Is distributing identifying information and documentation about victims at the most vulnerable times of their lives to non-government interested parties the best we can do to protect them?” It is especially troubling since the dissemination of this information to non-profits gives little guidance as to operational standards for organizations that would be involved.

The call for “training content moderators”–without any assurance that such training would not be alarmist, transphobic, misogynist, xenophobic and racist–conjures images of the censorship we already experience on social media with regard to erotic or sexual content. We do, after all, live in a country that does not even provide comprehensive sexuality education to young people in schools. There is a strong push to de-eroticize internet spaces that is bolstered by this additional set of policing measures. Since it is evident in current censorship practices, it is safe to assume that these measures will further marginalize persons with low access to public discourse. 

Sex workers are sure to be caught in the drag net of the search for child sexual abuse. Our information will be made available to the federal government and organizations we may never have even heard of. Our content will be judged and shared by persons whose access we did not consent to. Finally, our content, especially content by Black persons and POC, will be weaponized by these government and private/nonprofit sector agencies to further the victim narrative of sex work and its conflation with trafficking.

These provisions are troubling even without the USA’s lurch toward puritanical conservatism. The collaboration between online platforms and the federal government is a looming threat to the “free expression” that once seemed to resonate with US ideals. There is no clear provision for how this information is used or held and by whom. The more information the government has on sex workers, the bigger targets we become and the more susceptible we are to legislative anti-sex work crusades. Make no mistake, sex workers just happen to be among the most profoundly affected by policies like SESTA/FOSTA and EARN-IT, but it concerns all of us. Our data is being weaponized against us in a plan for our erasure if we are considered a “security risk” or even just “different”.

Currently, the best practices in targeting and handling ‘evidence’ of CSAM and trafficking are intended to be suggestions. However, that is cold comfort, seeing as though long held rights and freedoms are being taken away at a rapid rate. The establishment of this commission heralds binding legal measures. Sex workers have warned everyone of the implications of such sweeping regulations. Sex workers have been the example of the uneven hand of censorship that targets those who are already marginalized. Society must take heed.

Resources:

S.3538 – EARN IT Act of 2022, full legislative history is located here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3538/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22earn+it+act%22%2C%22earn%22%2C%22it%22%2C%22act%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

A downloadable PDF of S.3538

Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act that defines “interactive technologies”: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:47%20section:230%20edition:prelim)