The Derbyshire problem.
After historically opposing changes to the Communications Decency Act's Section 230, web giants came out in favor of a proposed amendment to the law, which would punish a website for knowingly facilitating sexual exploitation.
This would seem to be something that VDARE should be concerned about. The logic here:
1. Derbyshire is a (presumably paid) blogger at VDARE.
2. Derbyshire, writing for VDARE, publicly questioned why possession of child porn is illegal. This can reasonably be seen as support for its legalization (possession) .
3. Legalization of the possession of child porn can reasonably be seen as increasing the demand for it.
4. Increased demand for child porn will, through the laws of economics, lead to increased supply to cater to that demand – leading to increased sexual exploitation of children (including, but not limited to, sexual abuse, rape, and possibly kidnapping and murder).
5. Hence, one can question whether points 1-4 would be interpreted as that blog running afoul of the proposed SESTA amendment. I'm not saying it will or it will not, I'm merely questioning the possibility. For the sake of prudent prevention, it would therefore be helpful for VDARE to disavow Derbyshire and remove him from their group of writers.