Peer-reviewed article
Reframing ‘online safety’: the neo-abolitionist agenda and the digital surveillance of sex workers
Athena Michalakea ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001This peer-reviewed article examines digital governance and online safety legislation in the US, UK, and EU, arguing that laws ostensibly designed to protect children and combat trafficking instead expand surveillance and marginalise sex workers. The author contends that these policies function as carceral governance rather than protective measures, and advocates for harm reduction approaches centred on sex workers' rights and agency. While the article discusses online safety and digital content, it does not focus on child well-being or interventions for children's protection and development.
Key points
Limitations
This article focuses on adult sex workers and digital governance policy rather than child well-being outcomes. It does not evaluate interventions for children's protection or development.
Abstract
This article examines the governance of digital sex work and online sexual content through the lenses of critical criminology, critical security studies, and digital labour studies. Focusing on key legislative frameworks – including SESTA/FOSTA (US), the UK Online Safety Act, and the EU Digital Services Act – it demonstrates how policies ostensibly designed to combat trafficking and protect children instead expand surveillance, financial exclusion, and algorithmic governance, exacerbating the marginalisation and criminalisation of sex workers. Rooted in ‘creeping neo-abolitionism’, these laws function as carceral digital governance, reinforcing exclusion through automated content moderation, biometric tracking, and platform policing rather than providing meaningful protections. Digital harms, whether stemming from AI-generated pornography or platform regulation, are fundamentally labour issues that cannot be addressed through punitive, carceral frameworks. Instead, this article advocates for a shift toward harm reduction, community-led interventions, and policies that uphold sexual autonomy and labour rights. At the same time, technology is not solely a tool of repression; it also enables networks of care, digital solidarity, and alternative infrastructures for sex worker resistance. A radical reconfiguration of ‘online safety’ is essential: one that challenges dominant legal and technological apparatuses and centres sex workers’ agency and expertise.