<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Abstract<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Sex\nWorkers were early adopters of Web 2.0 technologies, such as online classified\npages, social media groups and shared content creation files. These technologies\nwere instrumental in improving sex worker safety and empowering workers to\nestablish clear identities and boundaries, screen potential customers and\ncreate shared content to improve the safety of all users. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
With\nthe introduction of FOSTA-SESTA into law, many of these platforms closed\nentirely, removed sex-worker-related content or deleted sex-worker accounts,\nresulting in a dramatic loss of income and a reduction of safety for sex\nworkers. Particularly affected were those sex workers pushed to less safe\navenues of sex work for survival, predominately sex workers of colour, trans\nand non-binary sex workers and others who experience intersectional\ndiscrimination. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
FOSTA-SESTA\nhas in fact further endangered the very people it seeks to protect as the censorship\nand regulation it creates removed the tools sex workers had set up for their\nown safety. Sex workers, however, are continuing to utilise Web 2.0\ntechnologies to organise, and create new Web 2.0 platforms and communities to\nreclaim their safety, identities and communities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Introduction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Since\nthe turn of the century, Web 2.0 technologies have facilitated ways for\nindividuals to express their identities publicly online and provided\nopportunities for collective organising (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). Sex workers utilise Web 2.0 technologies for\nidentity expression and collective organising despite the impact that the 2018\nUnited States (US) Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act\n(FOSTA) and Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) have had on Web 2.0\ntechnologies. While FOSTA\/SESTA is intended to curb sex trafficking and is framed\nas the \u201cprotection\u201d of vulnerable women, such regulations censor the shared\ncreation of community and content and contributes to the further\nmarginalisation and reduced safety of these women. The term \u201csex work\u201d includes\nthe exchange of any sexual services for money or other goods and services and\ncan include full service sex workers, porn actors, strippers, escorts,\ndominatrixes, web cam performers, or phone sex operator among others (Sawicki, Meffert, Read, & Heinz, 2019). This paper briefly introduces sex work from\nan intersectional feminist approach, explores how sex workers employed Web 2.0\ntechnologies to express identify and collectively organise to improve their own\nsafety prior to 2018, provides a brief overview of the FOSTA-SESTA laws (along\nwith an exploration of how these laws have affected sex workers use of Web 2.0\nfor identity expression, collective organising and safety), and investigates\nhow the laws in the US are censoring legal sex-worker communities in Australia\nand, in fact, making it harder to identify and help victims of sex trafficking.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sex\nwork has been around throughout history, with attitudes towards it changing based\non political and religious climates (Sawicki et al., 2019). While many studies employ a radical or\nliberal feminist approach to sex work, this paper applies an intersectional\nfeminist approach (with a focus on full-service sex workers), which acknowledges\nthat class, race, sexual orientation, age and ability can inform a person\u2019s\nexperience of gender, discrimination and feminism (Sawicki et al., 2019). FOSTA-SESTA focuses on sex trafficking (which\ncan include slavery and forced sexual acts) using abduction, coercion and other\ntypes of duplicity to exploit individuals (Sawicki et al., 2019). By contrast, sex work is undertaken by\nconsenting adults where the exchange of sexual services for goods or money does\nnot violate the individuals human rights (Sawicki et al., 2019). Sex work as paid labour is equivalent to\nother forms of paid labour. However, it is important to acknowledge that choice\nis not binary for many, rather it is a spectrum, where the intersections of\ndisadvantage and discrimination inform what choices a person has available to\nthem (Sawicki et al., 2019). This phenomenon, however, is not specific to\nthe sex industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sex Workers’ Historical Use of Web 2.0 Technologies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The\nemergence of Web 2.0 technologies, in particular centralised, searchable\nclassified advertising (such as Craigslist, Cracker and Backpage)\nrevolutionised the sex work industry, particularly for full-service sex\nworkers. These online classified sites, facilitated an increase in independent\nworkers, increasing safety by moving the transactions indoors and online, and\naway from the more dangerous outdoor street transactions or third party (pimp)\ntransactions (Cunningham, DeAngelo, & Tripp, 2019). Sex workers also found that these sites\nincreased their safety in other ways. The creation of a space for sex workers\nto establish and publish their identity online allows other sex workers and\nclients to see what services an individual does and does not offer (Cunningham et al., 2019). Sex workers reinforce this messaging across\nmultiple other Web 2.0 platforms, including social media and blogs (Campbell, Sanders, Scoular, Pitcher, & Cunningham,\n2018). This allowed workers to outline their labour boundaries or\noffer specialised services prior to meeting clients, reducing the risk of misunderstanding\nand violence (Campbell et al., 2018; Mojumder, 2018b). This meant that sex workers could create\nindividual and specialised identities with which to not only seek work, but confirm\ntheir identity as a sex worker and access sex-worker specific communities on\nWeb 2.0 platforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sex\nworkers often use multiple methods of screening to reduce their risk by\nsearching the potential customers name, phone number or email address on social\nmedia platforms (Campbell et al., 2018). Over the last 20 years, Web 2.0 technologies\nhave been used by sex workers to create shared content, including blacklists (lists\nof violent clients, clients who do not respect boundaries, and\/or clients who\nhave stolen from workers or not paid for services) and whitelists (recommended\nclients) (Campbell et al., 2018; Cunningham et al., 2019; Mojumder,\n2018). These lists are private and can only be accessed by those\nwho have been confirmed to be sex workers. The advertisements on Web 2.0\nplatforms are utilised in these instances to confirm a new user\u2019s identity as a\nsex worker before granting them access (Mojumder, 2018). These lists improve the safety of sex\nworkers, providing them with a method to screen prospective new clients before\naccepting work. By utilising these advertisements to express identity and creating\nshared content through blacklists and other shared resources, sex workers\ncreate loose community ties, enabling them to work together to improve their\njoint safety. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
An\nimportant part of how sex workers use Web 2.0 technologies is to build a\ncommunity. By being able to use Web 2.0 technologies, sex workers are able to create\ntheir own community and individual identity and organise themselves politically.\nSex workers use social media groups to post stories about their experiences,\nshare safety tips and comment on each other\u2019s posts, providing support, reinforcing\ntheir identity and creating ties within their community (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007; Campbell et al., 2018). They use these groups to politically organise\naround labour and safety laws in their particular geographical area (Johansson & Scaramuzzino, 2019). These examples make it particularly clear how\nsex workers use Web 2.0 platforms to create community and weak ties with which\nto work towards a shared goal. This has been particularly evident in recent\nyears as sex workers organised to fight the introduction of FOSTA-SESTA laws\nand, consequently, advocate for their rights in the new landscape post FOSTA-SESTA\n(Johansson & Scaramuzzino, 2019; Renegade &\nPottenger, 2019). Since sex workers still experience significant stigmatisation,\nthese communities provide a vital, and sometime lifesaving, source of support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An\nexample of sex workers utilising social media platforms to create safety and\ncommunity can be see within the Australian sex-work community and two of their\nFacebook groups (hereby named Group A and Group B to maintain privacy). To\nensure the safety of this highly stigmatised community, these two private\nFacebook groups remain strictly only for sex workers. To be added to Group A, a\nsex worker needs to provide links to their advertisements and, ideally, a\nverification from another sex worker who is already a member of Group B (Sydney (professional name), 2019a, 2019b). Once a sex worker has been verified and added\nto Group A, they need to demonstrate that they are actively engaging in sex work\nthrough their discussions and participation in the group. Only then can they be\nadded to Group B, where conversations can include information about specific\nclients and any related safety concerns. This can include the sharing of potential\nnew client names, phone numbers and email addresses to ascertain any potential safety\nconcerns as well as debriefing after shifts. Group B is also where sex workers\ncan contribute to and access the shared content, such as blacklists (Sydney (professional name), 2019a, 2019b). This shows that Australian sex workers have\nbeen active adopters of Web 2.0 technologies, utilising many features to\nimprove their own safety and create a community to garner support and share\nknowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
FOSTA-SESTA and its Impact on Sex Workers Use of Web 2.0 Technologies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
In\nthe 1990s, US politicians were interested in developing the internet as a forum\nfor free speech with minimal regulations while also protecting children from\nbeing exposed to explicit material (Leary, 2018). The US congress intended to limit liability\nfor Web 2.0 platforms. However, congress inaction and progressive case law\nresulted in what was, in essence, broad immunity for technology platforms for\nthe content their users posted (Leary, 2018). In 2017, two new laws were introduced to the\nUS parliament, FOSTA and SESTA, both designed to reduce immunity and hold\nplatforms to account for advertisements for sex work and services of trafficked\nvictims. These laws particularly focused on sex trafficking and the platforms\nwhich enabled sex trafficking (Leary, 2018). While initially\nthe laws received little traction, in 2017, journalists revealed foreign\ngovernments utilising Web 2.0 technologies to interfere in the 2016 US election.\nThis resulted in a renewed interest in the regulation of technology platforms\nacross the political spectrum, and FOSTA-SESTA became politically popular as a\ntool to regulate the very large technology companies (Bridy, 2018). FOSTA-SESTA removed the protections for\nplatforms that promote or facilitate sex trafficking (Bridy, 2018) and, essentially, conflated sex trafficking\nand consensual sex work, making it illegal for platforms in the US to contain\ncontent involving any sex work (Hagen, 2018). This\nmeans that, overnight, sex workers\u2019 advertisements and Web 2.0 communities were\ndeleted. These actions effectively deleted vital community ties, critical\nsafety mechanisms and important ways sex workers expressed their identities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
While\nthere is limited academic literature detailing the effects that FOSTA-SESTA has\nhad on the sex work community so soon after its implementation, more and more\narticles are becoming available outlining the experiences of sex workers in\nthis new climate. One study found that platforms such as Craigslist reduced the\nincidence of women being murdered in the US but the homicide rate increased\nagain after FOSTA-SESTA passed (Cunningham et al., 2019). 13 sex workers disappeared in the US in the\nfirst week after FOSTA-SESTA was enacted and another two sex workers were murdered\nand their bodies found that same week (Lawless, 2018). Most data, however, at this stage, comes from\nsex worker and anti-FOSTA-SESTA organisations providing firsthand accounts of\nsex workers whose livelihoods have been jeopardised and safety reduced (Cox, 2018; Grant, 2018). During the period surrounding FOSTA-SESTA\u2019s\npassage through the US parliament, multiple Web 2.0 platforms shut down entirely,\nsuch as Backpage and sex-worker specific platforms, such as CityVibe and Erotic\nReview (Kessler, 2018). Other Web 2.0 platforms, including\nCraigslist, Skype and Reddit, changed their terms of service to specifically\nexclude sex workers from their platforms (Kessler, 2018), with Reddit removing some sex-worker specific\nsubreddits (Adair, 2018). Sites such as Twitter, Facebook and Google\nhave been removing the accounts of sex workers, including legal Australian sex\nworkers\u2019 accounts (Adair, 2018; Lawless, 2018). The\nremoval of sex workers from Web 2.0 platforms censors the voice of already\nmarginalised and stigmatised people, and puts lives at risk, in contradiction\nto the supposed intent of FOSTA-SESTA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Technology\nplatforms conforming to the new FOSTA-SESTA laws remove sex-workers\u2019 ability to\nwork independently and screen potential customers, putting them at risk from violent\ncustomers and unscrupulous third parties if they wish to continue working (Adair, 2018). Sex workers are reporting a reduction in\ncustomers due to a reduced ability to advertise, with those who have been\nhardest hit coming from even more marginalised communities (such as women of\ncolour, trans and non-binary women, women with disabilities, trafficked\nsurvivors and migrant sex workers) (Hagen, 2018; Lawless, 2018; Witt, 2018). Many of these women have limited options beyond\nsex work to start with due to their intersecting disadvantages and are,\ntherefore, pushed to the riskier options of street-based and pimp-facilitated\nsex work in disproportionate numbers (Lawless, 2018; Witt, 2018). As sex workers are forced offline, pimps and\ntraffickers are taking advantage of the situation and exploiting sex workers\nwho have limited other options (Cole, 2017), in direct contrast to what FOSTA-SESTA set\nout to achieve. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Since\nbecoming law, critics of FOSTA-SESTA claim it has had another unintended\nconsequence, i.e. the further endangerment of victims of sex trafficking (Lawless, 2018; Witt, 2018a). Websites, such as Craigslist and Backpage,\nwere not only used by consenting sex workers. Research has identified that sex\ntrafficking organisations also utilised these platforms to advertise the\nservices of trafficked or coerced victims (Mojumder, 2018). Police and law enforcement are hindered in\ntheir ability to fight sex trafficking as sex traffickers are no longer able to\nutilise these easily searchable platforms, which police can monitor, and have\nmoved to the dark web (Lawless, 2018; Woolery, 2018) or moved offline altogether (Sawicki et al., 2019a). The inability of police to identify and rescue\nvictims of sex trafficking means that the impact of FOSTA-SESTA goes directly\nagainst the stated aims of the legislators, further endangering these victims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sex\nworkers, however, were early adopters of Web 2.0 technologies (Cox, 2018) and, in this post-FOSTA-SESTA climate, have\ncontinued to utilise Web 2.0 technologies to serve their purposes. A Swedish\nstudy found that sex workers were employing similar Web 2.0 platforms and\nstrategies to other labour unions to organise and advocate for their workplace\nrights. This includes maintaining social media accounts, YouTube channels and\nblogs to create and coordinate their community and allies to advocate for\nchange (Johansson & Scaramuzzino, 2019). Similarly, in Australia and around the world,\nsex workers organised almost immediately after FOSTA-SESTA passed to protect\nboth their community and themselves (Cox, 2018). Their comfort with technology and strong\nglobal networks (facilitated by their extensive use of Web 2.0 platforms)\nallowed them to quickly find new hosts for websites and blogs in countries with\nstrong privacy laws which could better protect them from US laws (including FOSTA-SESTA)\nand potential future sex-work related laws (Cox, 2018). A promising example of this is the new\nadvertising platform built by, and for, sex workers, crockor.com.au, hosted in\nIceland (Cox, 2018; Hosting Checker, 2019). Additionally, sex workers are moving to non-US-based\nemails, platforms and other online communication methods (Adair, 2018). The impact that FOSTA-SESTA has had on the\nlegal sex work community in Australia emphasises the fact that many online\nspaces and large Web 2.0 platforms are owned by the US and accountable to their\nlaws (Adair, 2018). In Australia, sex workers have reported that,\nwhile some sex-worker accounts on Facebook have been deleted, so far, the\nprivate Facebook Groups have not been deleted and they are now using\nadvertisements on new sex-worker Web 2.0 platforms (such as Crockor) to verify group\nmembers\u2019 identities as sex workers (Sydney (professional name), 2019a). Thus, despite FOSTA-SESTA impacting the\ncreation of identity, community and safety for sex workers, sex workers\ncontinue to utilise Web 2.0 platforms to rebuild communities and take ownership\nover their own safety. However, at this stage, the emerging sex-worker specific\nWeb 2.0 platforms are still small and do not have the reach that previous\nplatforms had.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
FOSTA-SESTA\nare two recent laws, introduced in the US, designed to regulate the internet that\nare changing users\u2019 relationships with the internet and Web 2.0 technologies. Overall,\nFOSTA\/SESTA has not been successful in its intention to curb sex trafficking. Rather,\nsuch regulation has censored the shared creation of community and content and\ncontributed to the further marginalisation and reduced safety of women who are\nalready vulnerable. However, it has also revealed that, while FOSTA-SESTA had a\nbrutal and significant effect on sex workers abilities to generate income and\nensure their safety, sex workers are fighting back. Their confidence with\ntechnology and strong community links forged on Web 2.0 platforms enabled them\nto organise, advocate and promote their own political interests and rebuild\ntheir Web 2.0 platforms and communities on websites hosted outside of the US.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
References<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Adair, K. (2018, April 25). Censorship Laws Put Sex Workers\nin Danger. Retrieved April 26, 2019, from\nhttps:\/\/www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au\/blog\/censorship-laws-put-sex-workers-in-danger\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Aguiton, C., & Cardon, D.\n(2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to Understand the Meaning\nof Web 2.0 by Christophe Aguiton, Dominique Cardon\u202f:: SSRN. Communications\n& Strategies<\/em>, 65<\/em>, 51\u201365.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bridy, A. (2018). Remediating\nSocial Media: A Layer-Conscious Approach by Annemarie Bridy\u202f:: SSRN. Boston\nUniversity Journal of Science and Technology Law,<\/em> 24<\/em>, 193\u2013228.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Campbell, R., Sanders, T.,\nScoular, J., Pitcher, J., & Cunningham, S. (2018). Risking safety and\nrights: online sex work, crimes and \u2018blended safety repertoires\u2019 – Campbell – –\nThe British Journal of Sociology – Wiley Online Library. The British Journal\nof Sociology<\/em>. Retrieved from\nhttps:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1111\/1468-4446.12493<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cole, S. (2017). Pimps Are\nPreying on Sex Workers Pushed Off the Web Because of FOSTA-SESTA – Motherboard.\nVice<\/em>. Retrieved from\nhttps:\/\/motherboard.vice.com\/en_us\/article\/bjpqvz\/fosta-sesta-sex-work-and-trafficking<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cox, C. (2018). Opinion:\nAustralian sex workers respond to FOSTA SESTA. The Feed<\/em>. Retrieved from\nhttps:\/\/www.sbs.com.au\/news\/the-feed\/opinion-australian-sex-workers-respond-to-fosta-sesta<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cunningham, S., DeAngelo, G.,\n& Tripp, J. (2019). Craigslist Reduced Violence Against Women. Retrieved from\nhttp:\/\/scunning.com\/craigslist110.pdf<\/p>\n\n\n\n Grant, M. G. (2018). 7 Sex\nWorkers on What It Means to Lose Backpage. Retrieved April 26, 2019, from\nhttps:\/\/www.thecut.com\/2018\/04\/7-sex-workers-on-what-it-means-to-lose-backpage.html<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hagen, J. J. (2018). Compounding\nRisk for Sex Workers in the United States: Latinx queer and trans women will\nsuffer disproportionally from a set of new laws restricting sex workers from\nseeking clients online.: NACLA Report on the Americas: Vol 50, No 4. NACLA\nReport on the Americas<\/em>, 50<\/em>. Retrieved from\nhttps:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/full\/10.1080\/10714839.2018.1550984<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hosting Checker. (2019).\nHosting Checker – Find out who is hosting any website. Retrieved April 26,\n2019, from https:\/\/hostingchecker.com\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n Johansson, H., &\nScaramuzzino, G. (2019). The logics of digital advocacy: Between acts of\npolitical influence and presence – H\u00e5kan Johansson, Gabriella Scaramuzzino,\n2019. New Media & Society<\/em>. Retrieved from\nhttps:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1177\/1461444818822488<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kessler, G. (2018). Has the\nsex-trafficking law eliminated 90 percent of sex-trafficking ads? – The\nWashington Post. Retrieved from\nhttps:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/politics\/2018\/08\/20\/has-sex-trafficking-law-eliminated-percent-sex-trafficking-ads\/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.df689fa4737a<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lawless, T. (2018). Since\nFOSTA. Retrieved April 26, 2019, from https:\/\/meanjin.com.au\/blog\/since-fosta\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n Leary, M. (2018). The\nIndecency and Injustice of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Scholarly\nArticles and Other Contributions<\/em>. Retrieved from\nhttps:\/\/scholarship.law.edu\/scholar\/990<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mojumder, P. (2018). Understanding\nthe Impact of Online Platforms on Human Society and Relationships: A Macro and\nMicro Perspective – ProQuest<\/em>. University of Minnesota. Retrieved from\nhttps:\/\/search.proquest.com\/docview\/2109033097\/abstract\/EF8346054C274E2EPQ\/1<\/p>\n\n\n\n Renegade, R., & Pottenger,\nK. (2019). Sex Work Is Work. New Labor Forum<\/em>, 28<\/em>(1), 98\u2013102.\nhttps:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1095796018819463<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sawicki, D. A., Meffert, B.\nN., Read, K., & Heinz, A. J. (2019). Culturally competent health care for\nsex workers: an examination of myths that stigmatize sex work and hinder access\nto care. Sexual and Relationship Therapy<\/em>, 0<\/em>(0), 1\u201317.\nhttps:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/14681994.2019.1574970<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sydney (professional name), T.\n(2019a, January 4). Discussion about Australian sex workers Facebook Groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sydney (professional name), T.\n(2019b, March 21). Sex Workers Facebook Group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Witt, E. (2018). After the\nClosure of Backpage, Increasingly Vulnerable Sex Workers Are Demanding Their\nRights | The New Yorker. Retrieved from\nhttps:\/\/www.newyorker.com\/news\/dispatch\/after-the-closure-of-backpage-increasingly-vulnerable-sex-workers-are-demanding-their-rights<\/p>\n\n\n\n Woolery, L. (2018). It\u2019s All\nDownsides: Hybrid FOSTA\/SESTA Hinders Law Enforcement, Hurts Victims and\nSpeakers. Retrieved April 26, 2019, from\nhttps:\/\/cdt.org\/blog\/its-all-downsides-hybrid-fosta-sesta-hinders-law-enforcement-hurts-victims-and-speakers\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sex Workers were early adopters of Web 2.0 technologies, such as online classified pages, social media groups and shared content creation files. These technologies were instrumental in improving sex worker safety and empowering workers to establish clear identities and boundaries, screen potential customers and create shared content to improve the safety of all users.Downloadable PDF<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
![\"Creative](\"https:\/\/i.creativecommons.org\/l\/by-nc-sa\/4.0\/88x31.png\")
<\/a>
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License<\/a>.<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\nWith the introduction of FOSTA-SESTA into law, many of these platforms closed entirely, removed sex-worker-related content or deleted sex-worker accounts, resulting in a dramatic loss of income and a reduction of safety for sex workers. Particularly affected were those sex workers pushed to less safe avenues of sex work for survival, predominately sex workers of colour, trans and non-binary sex workers and others who experience intersectional discrimination. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":29,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[28,86,85,87,88,83,84,64],"class_list":["post-171","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-communities","tag-community","tag-censorship","tag-fosta-sesta","tag-regulation","tag-safety","tag-sex-work","tag-sex-workers","tag-web-2-0"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/29"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=171"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":308,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171\/revisions\/308"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}