Brand New Image Galleries go LIVE!!

[Expresso Jim]

I know I'm still a bit thick on this, but no one has been able to explain to my satisfaction how a Texas law can affect 49 other states. I can tell you if the Colorado or any other state legislature passed a law, it would have zero impact on Texas. Everyone else seems to understand and accept this Texas law thing but me. What am I missing folks? a

Originally Posted by SeekingSpice

Let us know where we will be able to find you.


In the meantime, I am going to wait for eccie to work things out. As I understand it this is all the result of a new Texas law. If they had move the whole operation overseas, say to the Netherlands where the site's internet provider is, Texas wouldn't have had jurisdiction.


I have always liked the fact that eccie does provider age verification, and that it opposes human trafficking, But so many useful tools are gone.


I wish eccie success in making the site useful again, and will check back periodically.

[Gabrielle]

Everyone keeps saying "result of bla bla bla law".

The changes made were to protect the owner and his money.

Initial changes were made to keep credit card processing.

However, the part nobody seems chatty about is the fact that FOSTA and other laws allow victims/survivors to sue the platform/location (websites, hotels etc.) of those who enabled sex trafficking.

So there's that.

Protect the owner and protect his money - ECCIE motto. (while the owner labor trafficks unpaid mods and admins)

(side note...the cloud act makes the entire Switzerland thing kinda useless)

The pics? :eyeroll: The new format will just encourage more fake reviews to be written with no recourse from sex workers. Thanks for finding another way abusers can easily abuse us here. :eyeroll:

[LustyBustyGina38FF]

Not sure guys have to pay but theses site are with the time to look at
https://privatedelights.ch/
https://tryst.link/


P411 is a pay site ,

Originally Posted by theonean

So which paid sites are legit? How do we know?

[Randall Creed]

Originally Posted by Gabrielle

Everyone keeps saying "result of bla bla bla law".

The changes made were to protect the owner and his money.

Initial changes were made to keep credit card processing.

However, the part nobody seems chatty about is the fact that FOSTA and other laws allow victims/survivors to sue the platform/location (websites, hotels etc.) of those who enabled sex trafficking.

So there's that.

Protect the owner and protect his money - ECCIE motto. (while the owner labor trafficks unpaid mods and admins)

(side note...the cloud act makes the entire Switzerland thing kinda useless)

The pics? :eyeroll: The new format will just encourage more fake reviews to be written with no recourse from sex workers. Thanks for finding another way abusers can easily abuse us here. :eyeroll:

Read through your rant there...twice.

Don't recall a single moment where it looked like a solution was in there.

[ThisDude]

blah

[RamTheJam]

This post was a waste of server space .

[Lester Krinklesac]

Originally Posted by PhantomofTheOpera

If he inverted the company that owns oh2 to a country like Switzerland or the Caymans that does not follow US laws, much less US State laws, and moved the site to one of those countries, like it was reported Ick did years ago after an expose listed things about the owners, then no, he won't be hauled off nor will the site be sized due to a lack of jurisdiction.

He is still allowing Texas advertising, he will get busted eventually.
If you think servers in another country matter, look up Marc Emery.
Do your business where it is not permitted and you will be made an example.
Hell ask Daniel Noriega if being in another country matters, doesn’t even matter if you are doing business for the US government or the leader of a sovereign nation.
They can even go into a foreign country and gun you down like Pablo Escobar.
Or a real dog and pony show like Saddam Hussein.
Might even sit on two countries for years, and kill you like Osama.

Sure bet they wish they had put servers in the Netherlands, they would have been so much safer

[PhantomofTheOpera]

No, he won't.

You must not know about 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230(c)(1) in which gives immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users. That section of USC is for those in the US, and its a little clearer when dealing with foreign countries regardless of who is advertising in or out of the country.

The Netherlands, Switzerland or the Caymans, its all the same with those countries. They are not bound by US Law, and in the Swiss' case, they used to ignore it, then caved, then came back and told the US a big "Cee-ya"