Requiem for Google+

Requiem for Google+

By now you’ve probably heard that Google is shutting down its failed attempt at a social network in Google+. Yes, your joke about how you thought it was already shut down is quite clever and original. You’re the Will Rogers of our time. Anyway, Google decided to shutter the service in the next year or so after the Wall Street Journal reported about a massive data breach which Google knew about last March. You can read more about that here, but I digress.

I’ve come not bury Google+ but to praise it. Although I haven’t used Google+ on a regular basis in quite some time, I was more fond of it than I was of Facebook or Twitter. To me, Twitter and Facebook are necessary evils in the world of content creation. If you want to get your content out, you have to post in on Facebook or Twitter if you want anybody to see it since many people’s internet routines revolve around one of those two networks. Whenever I go to one of those two services I usually groan at most of the verbal refuse that’s been posted there. That’s usually followed up with massive amounts of muting and unfollowing.

While it wasn’t designed this way by the lords of search, I found Google+ to be more about quality over quantity, more substance than style, and it was often a treat to engage in discussion on Google+. I felt that Google+ was more tech and geek-friendly without devolving into fanboy shouting matches. I could ask questions I had about Linux and get helpful and pleasant responses. I could talk about comic books without the discussion turning directly to politics. In essence, Google+ was the anti-Facebook and I will miss that from when Google+ was at its height. Sadly, like most things that aren’t Facebook, most Google+ users gave up on the network a long time ago, myself included. However, when you’ve been o the internet as long as I have, you kind of get used to your favorite services either shutting down, being bought out, or just not succeeding.

Here’s hoping the day will come again when a service succeeds where we can all be civil to each other.

Google reverses defense of Backpage

Google reverses defense of Backpage

Previously, I’ve posted about how tech giants like Google opposed amending the Communications Decency Act of 1996. After the drubbing Google and Facebook took during last week’s Senate hearing about the Russian political ads debacle, they now have seemed to thrown their support behind the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act. This is the bill that would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that has allowed sites like Backpage to avoid prosecution for their role in the sex trafficking of women and children.

Previously, tech giants like Google had opposed the bill fearing it would open them to potential lawsuits even though the amendment to the CDA specifically targets sites that bad-actor websites. Now, The Internet Association, which represents such tech luminaries as Google, Facebook and Twitter, has reversed their opposition to the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act.

While it may not have been done out of the goodness of their hearts, but more to try to get Congress off their backs, this is still an important step towards the bill becoming law. Without as many allies, Backpage’s support is now crumbling. We are now several steps closer to seeing protections enabled to prevent girls and women from being trafficked on sites like Backpage and hopefully the successful prosecution of those who have profited way too long from their victims’ suffering.

Google sticks up for Backpage and trafficking

Google sticks up for Backpage and trafficking

Nicholas Kristof, of the New York Times, is one of the few nationally known journalists who has continually reported on the transgressions of Backpage when it comes to Backpage’s part in the sex trade. In one of his recent columns, Kristoff goes after an even bigger fish in the polluted waters of internet sex trafficking, Google. Google opposes the proposed amendments to the Communications Decency Act that would remove the protections from prosecution that sites like Backpage have been hiding behind, otherwise known as the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act.

Kristoff claims that Google has an unfounded fear when it comes to their argument of a slippery slope with Google claiming the new amendment to the CDA could open them up to frivolous lawsuits. However, a spokesperson for the National Center for Missing and Exploited children points out the new legislation is crafted in such a way that it only applies to those sites which are directly receiving money from traffickers.

“This bill only impacts bad-actor websites,” notes Yiota Souras, general counsel at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. “You don’t inadvertently traffic a child.”

Yet the majority of Silicon Valley is opposing the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act mostly out of fear that it will somehow affect their right to free speech, which couldn’t be further from the truth. There is no slippery slope here. There is no downside. I think what the mostly insular tech community forgets is the victims being bought and sold into sexual slavery on sites like Backpage are real flesh and blood people and not just nameless pixels on a display screen.

Instead of worrying about Backpage’s ‘freedom of speech’ these tech companies should be more worried about the fact that many of the women and girls being trafficked on Backpage have no freedom at all in a country that prides itself on liberty.