Behind the Screen: How the Internet Hides What It Craves – Silencing Sex Workers Through Algorithm

Introduction

Few factors pose a more significant effect on human connection than sexuality, a fact that the internet takes full use of. From commercial campaigns to viral social media trends, sexualised content increases engagement and profitability. However, the platforms that promote this content are the same ones that routinely oppress those who create it: sex workers. This paradox—society's parallel reliance on and vilification of sex work—reveals deep-seated hypocrisy that has existed for millennia.

Sex work has always been stigmatised, despite its evident role in society. This stigma exemplifies a larger cultural contradiction: although society enthusiastically consumes sexualised media, it shames and marginalises those who produce it. These biases are now duplicated and reinforced in the digital realm, where algorithms, under the guise of upholding "community standards," disproportionately target sexual workers. For example, one sex worker described how her regular Instagram posts were frequently removed for "violating community guidelines." Despite appealing and having the post returned, the recurring removals created a serious question: why does this happen so frequently? As Gabriella Garcia rightly points out, "To Big Tech, the sex worker is as indispensable as they are disposable." This is a glaring illustration of how algorithms perpetuate systemic inequality by silencing the voices of sex workers while profiting from sexualised content.

This article investigates the historical stigma of sex work, cultural inconsistencies that shape social perceptions, and how these factors influence internet algorithms. It contends that digital platforms have become modern tools for silencing, reflecting, and intensifying offline hypocrisies.

Algorithmic Discrimination Against Sex Workers

An algorithm is a link between input and output that includes a set of commands that any computer must execute in order to produce the final result. The goal of an algorithm is to eliminate human errors and arrive at the optimal solution in a timely and efficient manner. 

The algorithmic bias against sex workers can be attributed mostly to algorithmic training data, which is easily understood as "garbage in, garbage out" or "bias in, bias out." There could be various explanations for this, one of which being human prejudice owing to preconception. The pre-ingrained concepts or stereotypes, which are irrespective of any rule and order, and that are conveyed to algorithms plays a crucial part in algorithmic discrimination against sex workers.

The algorithm needs to be taught to automatically censor explicit content, and example text, photos, and videos are used to define the system's parameters. Human bias influences this issue because legal content, such as sex workers appropriately promoting their work, may be flagged due to a moderator's personal beliefs or discomfort. This bias trains the algorithm to automatically restrict similar content in the future, without human intervention.

The wrath of algorithm bias affects online sex workers in a variety of ways. It could be mentally or economically. Previously, a viewer stated, "I love my wife and have no interest in cheating on her or any other type of real-life relationship. But it's as if cam girls offer a loophole, allowing me to feed my desire to re-experience flirting/courtship/desire without actually fucking with my own emotions/temptations or another woman's." This demonstrates society's double standards, in which they crave while feeding bias to others. The societal bias that leads to algorithmic bias also has a major impact on online sex workers. Even their appropriate content for contacting people was shadow banned, stopped reaching audiences, or even deleted, limiting their source of income and putting them in financial hardship. Furthermore, there is no accountability of any social media service provider for such activity by algorithms.

In the United States, the SESTA/FOSTA law applies. It suspends protection for online platforms that promote prostitution. This puts online sex workers in a perilous predicament because they now have to move to the streets, which surely increases the crime rate and makes it difficult to detect.

According to the research by NACO, many FSWs use a combination of non-technological, technology-based, and traditional approaches to address issues including digital silencing and algorithmic bias. These overlaps highlight the need for inclusive and protective digital policies by exposing them to increased vulnerabilities like economic challenges and exposing how they depend on multiple approaches.

Consequences of Digital Silencing

Digital silencing has serious ramifications for marginalised populations, particularly sex workers, on economic, social, emotional, and physical levels.

• Economic Harm:

Digital silencing, such as deplatforming and algorithmic censoring, significantly affects the stability of income for sex workers. Many sex workers formerly utilised platforms like Backpage and Tumblr to advertise discreetly, but these were shut down once FOSTA-SESTA was enacted. This has led workers to rely on riskier and less effective techniques of client acquisition. According to a sex worker in the Erased research (Blunt and Wolf, 2019), "websites are constantly shadowbanning sex workers...it makes advertising stupidly hard." Another person reported living in "dire, abject poverty" due to their inability to access these platforms, emphasising the increased economic vulnerability they suffer without Medicaid or disability assistance.

• Challenges in Accessing Safer Workspaces Online:

The closing of online platforms eliminated critical harm-reduction measures including client screening and community support. For example, one sex worker emphasised the necessity of these tools, saying, "If it hadn't been for Tumblr and other sites, I would have had no idea how to screen and stay safe." The incapacity to use digital spaces has left many workers without the means they need to protect themselves or continue their livelihoods.

• Social and Emotional Impact:

Digital erasure marginalises and stigmatises sex workers, perpetuating societal biases. Algorithms disproportionately target sex workers' content, resulting in account deletions or shadowbans. This erasure dismantles collaborative networks and resources. One sex worker complained, "With people being shadowbanned or erased, many of the folks I followed have simply vanished. "Typed or infographic resources are no longer available." The ongoing loss of digital presence contributes to emotions of rejection and isolation, exacerbating the emotional impact on people impacted.

• Offline Vulnerabilities:

Without access to digital tools, many sex workers are forced to rely on risky offline techniques to find customers. Disabled sex workers, in particular, claimed that the elimination of sites such as Backpage greatly harmed their working conditions. A person commented: "I have not met up with a real-time client since April 2015… but post-FOSTA, my safer work techniques have disappeared."

Furthermore, digital silencing frequently sends sex workers into the streets, exposing them to increased dangers of physical violence and crime. Sex workers are unable to screen customers or access harm-reduction programs because there are no digital safety precautions in place. This makes them more vulnerable to violence, exploitation, and other risks linked with street work. Incidents in such unregulated areas are difficult to track, making it practically impossible to identify or hold offenders accountable.

Advocacy and Solutions

In India, the legal framework governing online sex work is woefully weak, making sex workers exposed to exploitation and digital exclusion. Despite the existence of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA) of 1956, which addresses trafficking and exploitation, the law does not handle the complexity of internet sex trade. The ITPA criminalises practices like as running brothels and pimping, but it does not include the digital sphere, leaving sex workers in legal limbo. Similarly, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act (IT Act), which prohibits the publication of obscene information, is frequently applied to online sex work advertisements, but its definition of "obscene" is subjective and depending on community values. This is obvious in Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014), when the Supreme Court stressed using societal standards to determine obscenity, further complicating enforcement.

Furthermore, the Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection, and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018, does not distinguish between voluntary sex work and trafficking. The Bill regards all sex workers as victims and, unless proven differently, penalises them, reflecting the problematic parts of the SESTA/FOSTA statutes in the United States. These regulations have unwittingly driven sex work into risky, clandestine areas, making it more difficult for law authorities to act. The Suhas Katti case (2004) highlighted how subjective interpretations of "obscenity" might result in the criminalisation of volunteer sex employment, confounding the legal environment.

India urgently needs a clear legal framework that controls internet sex work without criminalising it. The objective is to distinguish between voluntary sex work and trafficking, ensuring that sex workers' rights are protected while law enforcement focusses on true exploitation. Only then can India protect sex workers' rights, avoid digital exclusion, and create a safer environment for everybody concerned.

Conclusion

The digital era exacerbates the contrast, in which society gains from sexualised content while silencing its producers. Sex workers are further marginalised due to algorithmic bias and digital barriers, exacerbating their vulnerability. India must enact legislation that protect online sex workers without criminalising them, explicitly distinguishing voluntary sex work from trafficking. Tech companies must also be held accountable for algorithms that promote discrimination. Protecting sex workers' rights online is critical for creating a more inclusive and equitable digital environment