The Swedish government wants to make paying for sexual services online a criminal offense. The law could have global implications for online services and put creators at risk, warns Yigit Aydin. He fights for the rights of sex workers on behalf of the association ESWA.
Bit simplistic, that.
Hey, my approach to engineering is “if machine moves, machine works”, and I’m sure there isn’t any more nuance than that, so… call it a tie?
The problem with “harm” is it’s hard to measure or qualify. What is “objectively less harm” in situations where you’re trying to regulate the use of narcotics or, indeed, sex work. Is it more harmful for it to be illegal because there’s some harm associated with it or is it more harmful to criminalize it? And if you don’t criminalize it but harm does come to pass how do you mitigate that?
What do you do when two people identify harm in opposite actions? How do you measure which harm is more harmful if you can’t have a zero harm outcome? What is the unit of harm?
The measure of harm is as follows: if any persons involved in the process feel that there is harm in it, however slight, then there is harm.
I’d say that’d work well
That’s not a measure.
If two people involved in a process feel that the other is harming them, then you need to weigh one harm against another. Similarly, if both an action and a lack of action cause harm you need to know what causes most harm.
I mean, if we stop beating around the bush and cut the socratic bullshit, the point is this: in all political action there are multiple interests that often, if not always, have conflicting positions and perceive the results of that action differently. The idea of the entire system is that a representative govenrment controlled by checks and balances will broadly align their choices with the interest of the general public, or at least do so more consistently than the available alternatives.
You can’t measure harm objectively. That’s not a thing. The world isn’t made of discrete actions where each either harms or doesn’t harm. It’s a web of interconnected interpretations, preferences, interests and benefits. Some are physical, others economic or moral. There isn’t an equivalence between them and there isn’t an objectively optimal solution. That’s the entire point of politics in the first place.
We’re not looking for a generalised measure of harm - just one good enough for safe sex work. For which my suggestion works, as it is basically equivalent to consent.
I disagree. We are looking for a generalised measure of harm because… well, because that’s what all politics does, but also because we’re measuring very different interests against each other.
There are people who will argue that while individual choices in sex work are neutral the system in general is patriarchal and harms primarily women with few resources or in vulnerable positions, so right from the jump you need to decide how many babies you’re going to throw with the human trafficking bathwater. Others will argue that sex work carries a moral harm, which I disagree with, but we’re not basing political choices on what I, personally, find acceptable (unfortunately, because I’m good at this).
There are the interests of online platforms, the interests of pornography producers (both mostly financial), the interests of people working in the industry, the interests of consumers of porn and other sex work… There are aguments about the impact of the sex work industry on sex education as online distribution weakens age limits, so by that channel you now also have to weigh online privacy against the ability to distribute properly targeted adult-only content.
It’s a complete mess of interconnected parameteres. Which is exactly why it’s a prime vector for conservative elements trying to attack it for ideological reasons to overlap with left-leaning feminists objecting to it for other reasons.
And if you come at it from an online bro “here’s an easy solution to a complex problem” attitude you’re almost certainly making the whole thing worse, so I’d caution against it.
There is plenty of people ignorant or in denial about harming themselves or being harmed. That is usually the stage where drug addicts are at before they realize their addiction as such.
Also it is very much possible to groom people who are legally of age into things where they think they are making the decision by themselves and from their own will, but actually they are manipulated and subjected to harm.
On the flip side there is also many situations where people claim to be harmed but actually are not and there is situations were people from the outside think to see harm or lack of harm and it not being true to the reality of the person affected.
It is difficult to navigate and there is no simple answers or measures to it.