Once a week.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.
How to survive social distancing according to science
Social distancing won't be easy, but science shows us how to make it more manageable.
- Social distancing asks us to repress our evolutionary desire for human contact and interaction.
- Experts worry long periods of the practice will have unforeseen consequences on our mental health.
- We look at seven ways to help us mitigate social distancing's harmful effects.
In response to the COVID-19, government and public health officials have asked us to steer clear of each other. Called "social distancing," the idea is to limit the transmission of the disease by lessening the contact we have with people.
To meet this goal, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has recommended postponing or canceling all mass gatherings; more than 30 states have shuttered school doors; and many cities have closed bars and restaurants.
Experts agree social distancing will help us slow COVID-19's spread, but as reported by Science, others worry it may have unforeseen consequences.
Over an extended period, loneliness and social isolation can increase stress and depression. They can exacerbate physical health problems such as heart diseases. And like coronavirus, they target the older cohorts of our population to injurious effect.
"The coronavirus spreading around the world is calling on us to suppress our profoundly human and evolutionarily hard-wired impulses for connection: seeing our friends, getting together in groups, or touching each other," Nicholas Christakis, a social scientist and physician at Yale University, told Science. "Pandemics are an especially demanding test…because we are not just trying to protect people we know, but also people we do not know or even, possibly, care about."
Social distancing will be our way of life for several weeks, maybe months. Here are seven ways to help us survive this new paradigm.
Understand social distancing
Despite the name, social distancing is really a form of social solidarity.
Most people who catch the disease will have mild to moderate symptoms—including fever, dry cough, fatigue, and sputum production—and they soon recover. Only an estimated 6 percent of people become critically ill and fewer still die. Even so, that leaves millions of people at risk of developing a debilitating case.
To protect these people, we practice social distancing to curb the disease's multiplying factor. As Lou Bloomfield, a physicist at the University of Virginia, explains:
At present, each person with COVID-19 transmits coronavirus to an average of about two to three people. With such a large multiplying factor, we have rapid exponential growth. Because it takes about five days for COVID-19 to develop, the cases are doubling every two or three days. If there are 100 cases today, there will be 200 cases in a couple of days, and a thousand cases in a little over a week. In a month, it will be almost a million cases. Not good.
Those near million cases would then swarm the public health system, severely draining resources and personnel.
To give a sense of how detrimental that could be, the United States only has 2.9 hospital beds per 1,000 citizens—a figure that represents every bed, not just the free ones. Other resources at risk of overuse include ventilators and respirators.
Through social distancing, we can flatten the curve. That doesn't mean that fewer people will get sick; however, the timeline of people contracting the disease elongates. In turn, the health system has more time to treat critical cases before new ones arrive.
"It is better to operate under the pretense that there is transmission in your community already," Syra Madad, a pathogens specialist, told Vox. "There's going to be disruption to daily life, but we want people to feel empowered by this. The decisions you make will ultimately affect the trajectory of this disease."
Keeping a sense of social solidarity in mind, alongside what philosopher Peter Singer calls the expanding circle of moral concern, may help us weather social distancing better than if we feel punished thanks to some abstract graph's extra spiky curve.
The 2009 swine flu pandemic lead to mass hysteria, according to a study conducted at the University of Michigan. The study found that people perceived H1N1 to be even deadlier than the Ebola outbreak in Africa. The truth was the opposite.
The results suggested that as the perception of risk increased—regardless of the change in actual risk—so did feelings of fear and anxiety. And this fear could lead to dangerous social or personal behavior.
"This is dangerous when the virus doesn't exist like with most mass hysteria cases, but it's even more dangerous when we're talking about a real virus that does exist," Jamiee Bell writes for Big Think. "The fear and paranoia around catching the virus lead to panic-purchasing and the spread of misinformation, which furthers the anxiety and fear in the general public."
Already with COVID-19, people have squirreled away doomsday preppers' supplies of toilet paper, paper towels, and hand sanitizer. Worse, snake oil salesmen have begun peddling fake cures that prey on people's fears.
To combat panic, we need to prioritize reason and realism. A good way to manage that is to filter our information ecosystems.
Prioritize expert-driven, reputable sources of information. The best sites for such information include the CDC's coronavirus page, your local health department's website, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. These should be your primary sources for information on what's happening and what steps to take.
Reputable news outlets like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal are good sources, but limit your exposure. The availability heuristic shows us that we make snap judgments based on how easily information comes to mind.
An oversaturation of news gives us the faulty sense that rare events occur with more frequency than they do. Primary news-driven examples include terrorist attacks, plane crashes, and, of course, pandemics.
Our sense of the world must be balanced by facts and statistics that, while less eye-catching than a front page headline, are in line with reality.
Retrofit your habit loop
With offices closed and schools shuttered, our daily routines are out of whack. This state can leave creatures of habit aimless, anxious, and stir crazy. Thankfully, you can hijack your pre-establish habit loop and retrofit it for social distancing.
Journalist Charles Duhigg has spent much time researching the science of habits. As he explains, the habit loop comes in three parts:
There's first a cue, which is a trigger for behavior. Then the behavior itself, which we usually refer to as a routine, or scientists refer to it as a routine. And then there's the reward. And the reward is actually why the habit happens in the first place, it's how your brain sort of decides, "Should I remember this pattern for the future or not?"
If you now work remotely, stick to your old cues of waking, showering, and putting on pants. Contrary to popular belief, most people who exclusively work at home manage those feats daily. After work, be sure to reward yourself with something that connects your new routine to a sweet dopamine hit.
As a bonus, you can now substitute your morning commute with something more relaxing. A cup of coffee and a good book, perhaps?
Or if you are homeschooling children, develop a schedule that incorporates routine and reward. Follow an hour of reading and workbook immediately with snack time or educational TV. Don't forget to reward lots of indoor work with outdoor excursions on sunny days.
Get outdoors and exercise
Yes, you can still take the little ones outdoors. Remember: the coronavirus spreads person-to-person through respiratory droplets. The high-contact surfaces that those droplets collect on—think tabletops, door handles, elevator buttons, etc.—are noticeably absent on interurban trails.
The outdoors provides a bevy of benefits to offset social distancing's mental cramps. Frequent contact with nature makes people happier, improves their concentration, and helps them heal. It supplies a wholesome regimen of Vitamin D, too. Doctors recommend 120 minutes of nature every week, and you can shoot for this goal in the weeks to come.
The outdoors also provides a people-free gym for those worried about losing their gains. And experts agree: Avoid the gym.
However, as Dr. Neha Chaudhary told the New York Times, you'll want to avoid high-traffic public places whether they are outdoors or not. Unfortunately, these include playgrounds and popular parks.
Make connections how you can
The CDC defines social distancing as avoiding congregate settings and maintaining a distance of approximately 6 feet from others. That's a broad guideline with a lot of wiggle room.
In an interview with the Atlantic, Carolyn Cannusicio, director of research at the Center for Public Health, translates that guidelines as follows: "I would recommend that people minimize social contact, and that means limiting all social engagements. That includes intimate gatherings among friends." However, she notes that there are exceptions:
I think the exception is if two households are in strict agreement that they are also going to reduce all outside contact and then those two households socialize together, to support one another. I can see social and mental-health advantages to that kind of approach.
Similarly, the King County Health Department points out that "social interaction is still vitally important to the mental health of young people." It recommends playdates of 10 or fewer children if children are healthy, physical contact is limited, and the play area isn't crowded.
Others take a more hard-line approach. As Lindsay Thompson, a pediatrician of the University of Florida, told NPR: "I'm personally taking a really strict line. I would say that playdates inherently have a risk—I don't know how big or small. But if we can put them off for a few weeks and replace it with family time, it would be better."
All experts agree that if you are sick, isolation is the best policy. If you must make in-person contact, be mindful of the risks, keep your distance, and follow CDC guidelines for washing your hands, not touching your face, and sneezing in a tissue you immediately throw away.
Many scientific studies have shown a strong correlation between altruistic activities and improved health, happiness, and well-being. A study in Nature Communications found that participants who spent money on others reported greater happiness than a control group who did not. Others have found that regular giving reduces depression while enhancing emotional regulation. Another found that patients reported ameliorated pain after volunteering.
"So much of public health is rightly focused on environmental toxins and the control of epidemics. However, a positive vision of public health must nurture benevolent affect and helping behavior," writes Stephen G. Post.
Social distancing may limit our opportunities for altruistic behavior, but we can get creative. We could, for example, help a high-risk relative or neighbor by offering to do their grocery shopping with our own. This keeps the high-risk individual away from crowded stores, while also lessening the number of people congregating through the aisles.
We could also form a pact with fellow parents to share homeschool responsibilities—provided, as Cannuscio recommends, everyone is healthy and parents maintain a strict agreement to reduce contact elsewhere.
And, of course, there are the traditional donations of time, money, and resources to nonprofits helping others during this difficult time.
Manage your stress
During a pandemic, stress can manifest in many ways, all harmful. Worry about ourselves and loved ones turns into ubiquitous anxiety. Changes in sleep patterns or increased alcohol use can make us tired and irritable. And underlying health conditions can worsen.
We'll need to sharpen our stress management techniques to keep our lives in balance. The CDC recommends setting aside time to unwind, exercise, and engage in activities you enjoy. Be cognizant of your eating habits, substitute alcohol for tea, and connect with others. And when you do have free time, don't spend it glued to breaking news or social media hubs (again, Don't Panic).
The CDC also recommends practicing deep breathing and meditation, which have been shown to have concentration and stress-reduction benefits. As psychologist Daniel Goleman explains:
The good news is that there's a dose-response relationship in meditation. Apparently from what we can tell the longer you do it the more benefits you get. For example, right from the beginning, there are intentional benefits, there are stress benefits, you're more resilient under stress, but we see this even more strikingly in people who have been longer-term meditators.
If your stress-reduction techniques typically involve leaving the house, you may be to escape virtually. Many museums are offering virtual tours to keep homebound minds sharp. The same goes for live performances. The Metropolitan Opera will stream free opera productions while its curtain is down.
Social distancing will prove a trial by fire. Neither humans nor our societies are built with the intention that we live as small, distant lightyears from each other constellations. In addition to the above, we have another strength to draw upon: optimism.
In one study, researchers looked at the "positive health" of the longest detained American POWs of the Vietnam War. The researchers concluded that optimism predicts "positive physical and psychological health" and provides "long-term protective benefits."
And that's a bonus tip for surviving social distancing in the weeks to come.
- The next pandemic is inevitable. Are we prepared? - Big Think ›
- Scientists calculate incubation period of coronavirus - Big Think ›
- Social Media Plays a Big Role in Long-Distance Relationships - Big ... ›
- Loneliness and anxiety is increasing during the pandemic - Big Think ›
How would the ability to genetically customize children change society? Sci-fi author Eugene Clark explores the future on our horizon in Volume I of the "Genetic Pressure" series.
- A new sci-fi book series called "Genetic Pressure" explores the scientific and moral implications of a world with a burgeoning designer baby industry.
- It's currently illegal to implant genetically edited human embryos in most nations, but designer babies may someday become widespread.
- While gene-editing technology could help humans eliminate genetic diseases, some in the scientific community fear it may also usher in a new era of eugenics.
Tribalism and discrimination<p>One question the "Genetic Pressure" series explores: What would tribalism and discrimination look like in a world with designer babies? As designer babies grow up, they could be noticeably different from other people, potentially being smarter, more attractive and healthier. This could breed resentment between the groups—as it does in the series.</p><p>"[Designer babies] slowly find that 'everyone else,' and even their own parents, becomes less and less tolerable," author Eugene Clark told Big Think. "Meanwhile, everyone else slowly feels threatened by the designer babies."</p><p>For example, one character in the series who was born a designer baby faces discrimination and harassment from "normal people"—they call her "soulless" and say she was "made in a factory," a "consumer product." </p><p>Would such divisions emerge in the real world? The answer may depend on who's able to afford designer baby services. If it's only the ultra-wealthy, then it's easy to imagine how being a designer baby could be seen by society as a kind of hyper-privilege, which designer babies would have to reckon with. </p><p>Even if people from all socioeconomic backgrounds can someday afford designer babies, people born designer babies may struggle with tough existential questions: Can they ever take full credit for things they achieve, or were they born with an unfair advantage? To what extent should they spend their lives helping the less fortunate? </p>
Sexuality dilemmas<p>Sexuality presents another set of thorny questions. If a designer baby industry someday allows people to optimize humans for attractiveness, designer babies could grow up to find themselves surrounded by ultra-attractive people. That may not sound like a big problem.</p><p>But consider that, if designer babies someday become the standard way to have children, there'd necessarily be a years-long gap in which only some people are having designer babies. Meanwhile, the rest of society would be having children the old-fashioned way. So, in terms of attractiveness, society could see increasingly apparent disparities in physical appearances between the two groups. "Normal people" could begin to seem increasingly ugly.</p><p>But ultra-attractive people who were born designer babies could face problems, too. One could be the loss of body image. </p><p>When designer babies grow up in the "Genetic Pressure" series, men look like all the other men, and women look like all the other women. This homogeneity of physical appearance occurs because parents of designer babies start following trends, all choosing similar traits for their children: tall, athletic build, olive skin, etc. </p><p>Sure, facial traits remain relatively unique, but everyone's more or less equally attractive. And this causes strange changes to sexual preferences.</p><p>"In a society of sexual equals, they start looking for other differentiators," he said, noting that violet-colored eyes become a rare trait that genetically engineered humans find especially attractive in the series.</p><p>But what about sexual relationships between genetically engineered humans and "normal" people? In the "Genetic Pressure" series, many "normal" people want to have kids with (or at least have sex with) genetically engineered humans. But a minority of engineered humans oppose breeding with "normal" people, and this leads to an ideology that considers engineered humans to be racially supreme. </p>
Regulating designer babies<p>On a policy level, there are many open questions about how governments might legislate a world with designer babies. But it's not totally new territory, considering the West's dark history of eugenics experiments.</p><p>In the 20th century, the U.S. conducted multiple eugenics programs, including immigration restrictions based on genetic inferiority and forced sterilizations. In 1927, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that forcibly sterilizing the mentally handicapped didn't violate the Constitution. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes wrote, "… three generations of imbeciles are enough." </p><p>After the Holocaust, eugenics programs became increasingly taboo and regulated in the U.S. (though some states continued forced sterilizations <a href="https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/" target="_blank">into the 1970s</a>). In recent years, some policymakers and scientists have expressed concerns about how gene-editing technologies could reanimate the eugenics nightmares of the 20th century. </p><p>Currently, the U.S. doesn't explicitly ban human germline genetic editing on the federal level, but a combination of laws effectively render it <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jlb/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jlb/lsaa006/5841599#204481018" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">illegal to implant a genetically modified embryo</a>. Part of the reason is that scientists still aren't sure of the unintended consequences of new gene-editing technologies. </p><p>But there are also concerns that these technologies could usher in a new era of eugenics. After all, the function of a designer baby industry, like the one in the "Genetic Pressure" series, wouldn't necessarily be limited to eliminating genetic diseases; it could also work to increase the occurrence of "desirable" traits. </p><p>If the industry did that, it'd effectively signal that the <em>opposites of those traits are undesirable. </em>As the International Bioethics Committee <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jlb/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jlb/lsaa006/5841599#204481018" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">wrote</a>, this would "jeopardize the inherent and therefore equal dignity of all human beings and renew eugenics, disguised as the fulfillment of the wish for a better, improved life."</p><p><em>"Genetic Pressure Volume I: Baby Steps"</em><em> by Eugene Clark is <a href="http://bigth.ink/38VhJn3" target="_blank">available now.</a></em></p>
A leading British space scientist thinks there is life under the ice sheets of Europa.
- A British scientist named Professor Monica Grady recently came out in support of extraterrestrial life on Europa.
- Europa, the sixth largest moon in the solar system, may have favorable conditions for life under its miles of ice.
- The moon is one of Jupiter's 79.
Neil deGrasse Tyson wants to go ice fishing on Europa<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="GLGsRX7e" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="f4790eb8f0515e036b24c4195299df28"> <div id="botr_GLGsRX7e_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/GLGsRX7e-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/GLGsRX7e-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/GLGsRX7e-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div>
Water Vapor Above Europa’s Surface Deteced for First Time<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9c4abc8473e1b89170cc8941beeb1f2d"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WQ-E1lnSOzc?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Scientists discover burrows of giant predator worms that lived on the seafloor 20 million years ago.
- Scientists in Taiwan find the lair of giant predator worms that inhabited the seafloor 20 million years ago.
- The worm is possibly related to the modern bobbit worm (Eunice aphroditois).
- The creatures can reach several meters in length and famously ambush their pray.
A three-dimensional model of the feeding behavior of Bobbit worms and the proposed formation of Pennichnus formosae.
Credit: Scientific Reports
Beware the Bobbit Worm!<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1f9918e77851242c91382369581d3aac"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_As1pHhyDHY?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
The idea behind the law was simple: make it more difficult for online sex traffickers to find victims.
- SESTA (Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act) and FOSTA (Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act) started as two separate bills that were both created with a singular goal: curb online sex trafficking. They were signed into law by former President Trump in 2018.
- The implementation of this law in America has left an international impact, as websites attempt to protect themselves from liability by closing down the sections of their sites that sex workers use to arrange safe meetings with clientele.
- While supporters of this bill have framed FOSTA-SESTA as a vital tool that could prevent sex trafficking and allow sex trafficking survivors to sue those websites for facilitating their victimization, many other people are strictly against the bill and hope it will be reversed.
What is FOSTA-SESTA?<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="723125b44601d565a7c671c7523b6452"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WBaqDjPCH8k?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>SESTA (Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act) and FOSTA (Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act) were signed into law by former President Trump in 2018. There was some argument that this law may be unconstitutional as it could potentially violate the <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/" target="_blank">first amendment</a>. A criminal defense lawyer explains this law in-depth in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoWx2hYg5uo&t=38s" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">this video</a>. </p><p><strong>What did FOSTA-SESTA aim to accomplish?</strong></p><p>The idea behind the law was simple: make it more difficult for online sex traffickers to find victims. FOSTA-SESTA started as two separate bills that were both created with a singular goal: curb online sex trafficking. Targeting websites like Backpage and Craigslist, where sex workers would often arrange meetings with their clientele, FOSTA-SESTA aimed to stop the illegal sex-trafficking activity being conducted online. While the aim of FOSTA-SESTA was to keep people safer, these laws have garnered international speculation and have become quite controversial. </p><p><a href="https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180321006214/en/National-Anti-Trafficking-Coalition-Celebrates-Survivors-Senate-Passes" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">According to BusinessWire</a>, many people are in support of this bill, including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and World Without Exploitation (WorldWE). </p><p>"With the growth of the Internet, human trafficking that once happened mainly on street corners has largely shifted online. According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, 73 percent of the 10,000 child sex trafficking reports it receives from the public each year involve ads on the website Backpage.com."</p><p>As soon as this bill was <a href="https://www.pivotlegal.org/sesta_fosta_censoring_sex_workers_from_websites_sets_a_dangerous_precedent" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">signed into law</a>, websites where sex workers often vetted and arranged meetings with their clients could now be held liable for the actions of the millions of people that used their sites. This meant websites could be prosecuted if they engaged in "the promotion or facilitation of prostitution" or "facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims." </p><p><strong>The bill's effects were felt around the world — from Canadians being unhappy with the impact of this American bill to U.K. politicians considering the implementation of similar laws in the future.</strong> </p><p>Heather Jarvis, the program coordinator of the Safe Harbour Outreach Project (SHOP), which supports sex workers in the St. John's area, <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/heather-jarvis-website-shutdown-1.4667018" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">explained to CBC in an interview</a> that the American bill is impacting everyone, everywhere: "When laws impact the internet — the internet is often borderless — it often expands across different countries. So although these are laws in the United States, what we've seen is they've been shutting down websites in Canada and other countries as well."</p><p>Jarvis suggests in her interview that instead of doing what they aimed to do with the bill and improving the safety of victims of sex trafficking or sexual exploitation, the website shutdowns are actually making sex workers less safe. </p><p>While <a href="https://gizmodo.com/the-uk-wants-its-own-version-of-fosta-sesta-that-could-1827420794" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">one U.K. publication</a> refers to FOSTA-SESTA as "well-intentioned but ultimately deeply-flawed laws," it also mentions that politicians in the United Kingdom are hoping to pursue similar laws in the near future. </p>
Has FOSTA-SESTA done more harm than good?<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNTUxMzY5Ny9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2ODUyNDc4OX0.dSEEzcflJJUTnUCFmuwmPAIA0f754eW7rN8x6L7fcCc/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=-68%2C595%2C-68%2C595&height=700" id="69d99" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="734759fa254b5a33777536e0b4d7b511" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="sex worker looking online for a job" data-width="1245" data-height="700" />
Is this really going to help, or is this bill simply pushing sex work and sex-related content further into the dark?
Credit: Евгений Вершинин on Adobe Stock<p>While <a href="https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180321006214/en/National-Anti-Trafficking-Coalition-Celebrates-Survivors-Senate-Passes" target="_blank">supporters of this bill</a> have framed FOSTA-SESTA as a vital tool that could prevent sex trafficking and allow sex trafficking survivors to sue those websites for facilitating their victimization, many other people are strictly against the bill and hope it will be reversed.</p><p><strong>One of the biggest problems many people have with this bill is that it forces sex workers into an even more dangerous situation, which is quite the opposite of what the bill had intended to do.</strong> </p><p>According to <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-anti-trafficking-activists-cheer-but-sex-workers-bemoan-shutdown-of/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Globe and Mail</a>, there has been an upswing in pimps sending sex workers messages that promise work - which puts sex workers on the losing end of a skewed power-dynamic, when before they could attempt to safely arrange their own meetings online. </p><p><strong>How dangerous was online sex work before FOSTA-SESTA? </strong></p><p><a href="https://www.beyond-the-gaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/BtGbriefingsummaryoverview.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The University of Leicester Department of Criminology</a> conducted an online survey that focused on the relative safety of internet-based sex work compared with outdoor sex work. According to the results, 91.6 percent of participants had not experienced a burglary in the past 5 years, 84.4 percent had not experienced physical assault in the same period, and only 5 percent had experienced physical assault in the last 12 months. </p><p><a href="https://www.pivotlegal.org/sesta_fosta_censoring_sex_workers_from_websites_sets_a_dangerous_precedent" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">PivotLegal</a> expresses concerns about this: "It is resoundingly clear, both from personal testimony and data, that attacking online sex work is an assault on the health and safety of people in the real world. In a darkly ironic twist, SESTA/FOSTA, legislation aimed at protecting victims of and preventing human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation, will do the exact opposite."</p><p><strong>Websites are also being hypervigilant (and censoring more content than needed) because they can't possibly police every single user's activity on their platform.</strong> </p><p>Passing this bill meant any website (not just the ones that are commonly used by sex traffickers) could be held liable for their user's posts. Naturally, this saw a general "tightening of the belt" when it came to what was allowed on various platforms. In late 2018, shortly after the FOSTA-SESTA bill was passed, companies like Facebook slowly began to alter their terms and conditions to protect themselves. </p><p>Facebook notably added sections that express prohibited certain sexual content and messages:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>"Content that includes an implicit invitation for sexual intercourse, which can be described as naming a sexual act and other suggestive elements including (but not limited to):</em></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>– vague suggestive statements such as: 'looking forward to an enjoyable evening'</em></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>– sexual use of language […]</em></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>– content (self-made, digital or existing) that possibly portrays explicit sexual acts or a suggestively positioned person/suggestively positioned persons."<br><br> </em></p><p>Additionally, sections like this were also added, prohibiting things that could allude to sexual activity: </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>"Content in which other acts committed by adults are requested or offered, such as:</em></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>– commercial pornography</em></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>– partners that share fetishes or sexual interests"</em></p><p>Facebook wasn't the only website to crack down on their policies — the Craigslist classifieds section being removed and Reddit banned quite a large number of sex-worker related subreddits. </p><p><strong>Is FOSTA-SESTA really helpful?</strong> </p><p>This is the question many people are facing with the FOSTA-SESTA acts being passed just a few years ago. Is this really going to help, or is this bill simply pushing sex work and sex-related content further into the dark? Opinions seem to be split down the middle on this — what do you think?</p>