many of us We live in a bubble where technology is something magical, something to be fiercely but safely debated on Twitter and in the blogosphere… and that’s why we don’t realize it. technology has become the latest and most divisive player (along with religion and politics) in discussions about sex trafficking.
When most people think about sex trafficking (a form of violence in which people are sexually exploited for commercial purposes), they immediately think of stereotypical images. Like that of a vulnerable girl exploited by a pimp. Innocent schoolboy attacked online by pedophile. An illicit connection between a predator and unwitting prey, made on a site like Craigslist or Facebook.
But child sex trafficking in the country most often involves young people who are homeless but rejected from overcrowded shelters. About teenagers exploited by family members (or kicked out of home for being gay or transgender). Or about young people who are simply trying to escape other forms of violence. In other words: systemic factors that have little to do with the actions of predators.
>Technology may seem like a neutral actor in a conflictive field, but it is not. This domain is complicated.
This is where technology, which reflects and magnifies the good, the bad and the ugly, complicates and plays a complicated role in the human trafficking landscape. Technology may seem like a neutral actor in a conflictive field, but it is not.
This domain is complicated. The limits are controversial and there are conflicting opinions on how to proceed. For example, a group of advocates long called for the abolition of classified advertising sites, such as Craigslist or Backpage, clinging to false hopes that eliminating these platforms would eliminate exploitation. Other groups have advocated for the use of ad networks on technology platforms to inform abusers about the harms they are creating. While well-intentioned, the data I’ve seen suggests this approach is neither effective nor productive.
No technology is objective. Each is steeped in the assumptions and prejudices of its creators. The likelihood of unintended consequences only increases when those designing the systems are unfamiliar with the complex, confusing and nuanced realities underlying the commercial sexual exploitation of children.
That’s why changing the sex trafficking landscape requires significant cross-sector collaboration and domain expertise.
[#contributor: /contributors/59328e7bd80dd005b42af664]|||Dr. [danah boyd](https://twitter.com/zephoria) is a senior researcher at Microsoft Research; research assistant professor in Media, Culture and Communication at New York University; and a fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society. His next book unravels myths about young people and social media.|||
Lately there has been a change of direction. There is a movement underway that technologists, social scientists, government agencies, advocates and NGOs have begun to reach out to. together imagine and build technology-based innovations that disrupt the commercial sexual exploitation of children. Because creating meaningful technical (and social) interventions to combat human trafficking (and other forms of exploitation) requires going beyond fears and dreams. Beyond dystopian and utopian rhetoric.
Still, these networks and meetings are not without difficulties: different actors have different incentives, objectives and interests. But to the extent that diverse constituencies can put aside their differences, there are enormous opportunities to take advantage of technology. This makes sense, of course. People use technology to do all kinds of useful things. those who seek combat Trafficking can use the same tools that are used for exploitation purposes; The key is to recognize that when technology makes abuse visible, it creates an opportunity for intervention.
