I was thinking that ‘Human Trafficking’ isn’t a great way to refer to modern day slavery – so I worked with ChatGPT Deep Research and came up with this article.

Why Terminology Matters

Language shapes how we understand human trafficking. Just as the shift from “global warming” to “climate change” improved public grasp of an urgent issue, reframing human trafficking with clearer terminology can illuminate its reality. The term “human trafficking” is often misunderstood – some imagine movement across borders or confuse it with smuggling. In truth, it’s a crime of coercion and exploitation. Advocates and policymakers have increasingly adopted terms like “modern slavery” or explicitly descriptive language to emphasize that this issue is about people being controlled, coerced, and exploited, not about “traffic” or transportation () (). Words matter: using language that highlights human rights violations and abuse of power can make the reality of trafficking more accessible and galvanize action (House Approves Updated Language in Statutes Related to Child Sex Trafficking).

From “Human Trafficking” to “Modern Slavery”

Modern slavery has emerged as a powerful alternate framing for human trafficking. High-profile leaders and organizations began calling trafficking “modern-day slavery” to convey its severity – for example, U.S. President Obama declared “human trafficking is modern day slavery.” Many governments followed suit; the UK’s Modern Slavery Act 2015 even uses this terminology to cover offenses of trafficking, forced labor, and servitude. In practice, “trafficking in persons,” “human trafficking,” and “modern slavery” are used as interchangeable umbrella terms referring to the same abuses (Human Trafficking Rights | Workplace Fairness). All describe a situation where traffickers exploit and profit by compelling people to work or perform sexual acts against their will (Human Trafficking Rights | Workplace Fairness). The phrase “modern slavery” draws a direct line to the fundamental violation of freedom and dignity involved. It underscores that victims are treated as property or commodities today, just as enslaved people were in the past. This framing tends to elicit a strong moral response and make clear that trafficking is not a minor offense, but a grave human rights violation akin to slavery.

Organizations and global bodies have adopted this language. The U.S. State Department often uses “modern slavery” in public materials alongside “human trafficking” (Understanding Human Trafficking – United States Department of State). The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals call for an end to “forced labor, modern slavery and human trafficking”, explicitly naming slavery to stress the human rights dimension. Advocacy groups like Walk Free (Global Slavery Index) intentionally use “modern slavery” as an umbrella term covering human trafficking, forced labor, debt bondage, forced marriage, and related abuses. This broad term focuses attention on what these crimes share: “situations of exploitation that a person cannot refuse or leave because of threats, violence, coercion, deception and/or abuse of power” (Terminology | Walk Free). In other words, modern slavery framing zeroes in on coercion and the loss of freedom – making it immediately clear that the core issue is forced exploitation.

It’s important to note that while “modern slavery” is powerful, it is not a legally defined term in many jurisdictions (Reconsidering the Use of the Terminology ‘Modern Day Slavery’ in the Human Trafficking Movement | National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC)). Some anti-trafficking specialists caution that invoking “slavery” for shock value can be problematic if not used carefully (Reconsidering the Use of the Terminology ‘Modern Day Slavery’ in the Human Trafficking Movement | National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC)). In the United States, for instance, the term carries historical weight; advocates remind us that slavery’s legacy persists in other forms and language must be sensitive to that context (Reconsidering the Use of the Terminology ‘Modern Day Slavery’ in the Human Trafficking Movement | National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC)) (Reconsidering the Use of the Terminology ‘Modern Day Slavery’ in the Human Trafficking Movement | National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC)). Nonetheless, when used thoughtfully, this terminology has helped broaden public recognition that trafficking is fundamentally about enslavement-like conditions in the modern world.

Emphasizing Coercion, Exploitation, and Human Rights

Whatever term is used, effective framing keeps the focus on coercion and exploitation. Human trafficking is not primarily about movement – it’s about control and abuse. Increasingly, definitions and public messages reflect this. For example, the U.S. Department of Justice defines human trafficking as “a crime that involves compelling or coercing a person to provide labor or services, or to engage in commercial sex acts” (Human Trafficking | What is Human Trafficking?). In essence, human trafficking is an exploitation-based crime: perpetrators use force, fraud or coercion to exploit victims for profit (Human Trafficking Rights | Workplace Fairness). That exploitation can take many forms – forced labor, sexual exploitation, domestic servitude, debt bondage, etc. – but in all cases the person cannot freely consent or leave.

Crucially, advocates emphasize that transportation is not a required element. One NGO explains that people “often falsely believe human trafficking implies victims must be moved from one place to another. However, human trafficking does not require transportation, nor crossing borders… Many victims are trafficked from their own community and/or home.” () This clarification is key to public understanding. By shifting language away from the word “trafficking” alone to phrases like “exploitation of people” or explicitly stating the force/fraud/coercion, we make it clear that the crux is the abuse of power and loss of freedom. Some educational materials now flatly state: “human trafficking is exploitation-based, whereas smuggling is voluntary and transportation-based” (), neatly distinguishing the two concepts.

To center human rights, many advocates speak of human trafficking as a form of modern-day slavery and gender-based violence. It’s described as a “crime that shames us all”, highlighting that it violates the fundamental rights to freedom, safety, and dignity. The human rights framing also means using language that recognizes victims as victims of crime and survivors of abuse, rather than as criminals or immigrants in violation of law. For instance, calling someone a “victim of trafficking” or “survivor of exploitation” immediately frames them as someone harmed and deserving of protection – in contrast to terms like “child prostitute” or “illegal alien,” which misplace blame or obscure victimization.

Language Shifts in Action: Organizations and Policy Makers

Over the past decade, advocates and policy makers have intentionally shifted language to improve understanding and reduce stigma. A striking example is the move to eliminate terms that imply victim culpability. Children in commercial sex are now described as victims of sexual exploitation or trafficking, never “child prostitutes.” In 2024, Oklahoma updated its statutes to replace “child prostitution” with “child sex trafficking” – acknowledging “there is no such thing as a child prostitute… when a child is in that dangerous situation, they are a victim, not an instigator.” (House Approves Updated Language in Statutes Related to Child Sex Trafficking). The law’s supporters noted that this seemingly small terminology change actually sends a powerful message: the minor is a victim of abuse, and the crime is on the exploiter. Advocates celebrated this change, saying “words matter… It is essential that we talk about the real and horrific crime of human trafficking in language that expresses that people are not willing participants in their victimization.” (House Approves Updated Language in Statutes Related to Child Sex Trafficking) This shift in wording is expected to influence attitudes of law enforcement, courts, and the public – leading to more empathy for victims and a stronger focus on prosecuting exploiters.

Survivor-centered language has also gained traction. Many organizations now prefer the term “survivor” instead of “victim” once a person is out of the trafficking situation, to highlight resilience and agency. Media guides advise avoiding phrases that sensationalize or oversimplify. For example, instead of saying someone was “rescued from prostitution,” they suggest saying the person was “exploited in commercial sex by traffickers” – which correctly assigns blame to the trafficker and notes the exploitative nature of the situation (Language Matters: 5 Ways Your Words Impact Trafficking Survivors – Polaris). Similarly, rather than describing an anti-trafficking effort as “rescuing victims,” organizations talk about helping people exit exploitation and recover, to respect that survivors are active participants in reclaiming their lives (Language Matters: 5 Ways Your Words Impact Trafficking Survivors – Polaris). This more nuanced language has the impact of empowering survivors and avoiding the “savior” narrative that can sometimes alienate those with lived experience.

Different international bodies might use different terms, but all trends point to emphasizing exploitation. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) sticks with “trafficking in persons” in formal texts, but always defines it by the elements of coercion and exploitation (per the Palermo Protocol). Meanwhile, groups like the International Labour Organization talk about “forced labour, bonded labour, and human trafficking” under the umbrella of ending modern slavery. Even the term “contemporary forms of slavery” is used in human rights contexts to encompass trafficking, forced marriage, and other similar abuses, again framing them as part of an ongoing human rights struggle. This convergence in language – whether it’s “trafficking in persons” in a legal context or “modern slavery” in a campaign – helps the public and policymakers alike to see these practices for what they are: the systematic coercion and exploitation of human beings.

The impact of these language shifts is significant. Public awareness campaigns that invoke “modern slavery” have drawn greater media attention and public outrage, increasing support for anti-trafficking initiatives. Governments using human-rights-centric language have been able to pass stronger laws (as seen not only in the UK and U.S., but around the world) because legislators frame the issue as protecting victims of slavery-like abuse rather than solely as a crime control or immigration matter. However, advocates are careful to evaluate language changes for any unintended consequences – for instance, ensuring that comparing everything to “slavery” doesn’t erase historical contexts or minimize other forms of oppression (Reconsidering the Use of the Terminology ‘Modern Day Slavery’ in the Human Trafficking Movement | National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC)). Overall, though, the consensus is that clearer, more empathetic terminology leads to better identification of cases, less victim blaming, and more effective mobilization of resources to combat the issue.

Recommendations for Effective Language

To continue improving understanding and response, here are recommended language practices for various contexts:

In Public Awareness Campaigns

• Use Plain Language that Emphasizes Exploitation: Describe the issue in simple, relatable terms. For example, talk about “people being forced or tricked into work or sex, essentially modern slavery.” Make it clear that it’s about coercion, not consent. Phrases like “sold for sex” or “forced to work without pay” convey the reality better than technical jargon.
• Adopt Humanizing, Non-Blaming Terms: Always refer to individuals as victims or survivors of exploitation. Avoid words that suggest they had agency in the crime (never say “child prostitute” – use “trafficked child” or “exploited child” (House Approves Updated Language in Statutes Related to Child Sex Trafficking)). Emphasize that anyone can fall prey to traffickers, usually due to vulnerabilities or coercion, not because of personal choice or moral failing.
• Leverage the Power of “Modern Slavery” (with Context): For broad audiences, “modern slavery” is impactful. Use it alongside “human trafficking” to immediately convey severity (e.g., “Millions worldwide are trapped in modern slavery – also known as human trafficking – where people are controlled through force, fraud, or coercion”). Providing that brief definition ensures the audience understands the term (Human Trafficking & Modern Slavery: Common Misconceptions | Hope for Justice).
• Avoid Sensationalism and Myths: Steer clear of hyperbolic or cinematic language that skews reality. For instance, not all victims are chained up in basements; many are controlled through psychological means or threats (Language Matters: 5 Ways Your Words Impact Trafficking Survivors – Polaris). So avoid solely using imagery like chains, cages, or the word “rescue” that imply a one-time dramatic event. Instead, explain that trafficking often involves manipulation, debt bondage, or abuse of trust, happening in ordinary settings. This balanced approach prevents misunderstandings – such as the myth that victims are always kidnapped strangers – and helps those at risk recognize the warning signs.
• Highlight Human Rights and Justice: Frame messages around rights and justice to invoke public empathy. Phrases like “crime against human rights,” “denial of freedom,” and “everyone deserves to live free from exploitation” resonate with core values. This framing encourages the public to see fighting trafficking as part of upholding human dignity, not just enforcing law.

In Policy and Legislative Discussions

• Use Legally Accurate but Clear Terms: In formal settings, continue using terms like “trafficking in persons” or “severe forms of trafficking” as defined in law, but always accompany them with an explanation of the concept. For example: “Trafficking in persons – the exploitation of someone through force, fraud, or coercion – is prohibited…” This ensures clarity for those unfamiliar with the legal jargon. Lawmakers have found it effective to pair the term with “modern slavery” in speeches or bill titles (e.g., the Trafficking Victims Protection Act is often discussed as a tool to fight modern slavery) to maintain precision while keeping the moral urgency in view.
• Update Outdated or Misleading Language in Laws: Review statutes and official documents for terminology that might obscure the issue. As noted, replacing terms like “child prostitution” with “child sex trafficking” in law is more than semantics – it aligns the law with reality and intent (House Approves Updated Language in Statutes Related to Child Sex Trafficking). Similarly, using “sex trafficking” or “commercial sexual exploitation” instead of “vice” or “prostitution offenses” can shift the perspective to seeing exploited individuals as victims in need of help. Ensure definitions in law clearly state that movement is not required and that any form of coercion or deception leading to exploitation is trafficking (). This clarity can influence how cases are identified and prosecuted.
• Emphasize Coercion and Consent (or the lack thereof): In policy dialogues, stress that trafficking is defined by lack of consent due to coercion. Terms like “involuntary servitude,” “forced labor,” and “exploitation” should be front and center. For instance, a policy report might say, “At its core, human trafficking is forced exploitation – a form of modern slavery where individuals are compelled through force, fraud, or coercion to work or engage in sex.” Such phrasing in policy forums keeps everyone focused on victims’ lack of freedom, guiding more victim-centric policies.
• Incorporate Survivor Voice and Preferences: Policymakers should be mindful of language preferred by survivors themselves. Many survivors advocate for being referred to as such (survivors) and for language that acknowledges their strength and agency post-escape. For example, when drafting policy reports or speaking in hearings, using terms like “survivors of trafficking” and referencing the goal of “supporting survivor recovery and empowerment” can align policy language with trauma-informed principles. This shift has been shown to affect funding priorities (favoring long-term rehabilitation services, not just criminal justice actions) (Language Matters: Defining Human Trafficking and Slavery – End Slavery Now) (Language Matters: Defining Human Trafficking and Slavery – End Slavery Now). In short, make the victim’s experience – not just the perpetrator’s crime – part of the definition in policy discussions. This leads to more holistic approaches that include victim services, as recommended by experts.

In Educational and Training Contexts

• Define the Term in Everyday Language: When teaching about human trafficking (in schools, community trainings, etc.), avoid immediately diving into legalese. Start with a straightforward definition like: “Human trafficking is when someone uses lies, violence, or threats to force another person to work or to sell sex. It’s basically modern-day slavery.” This kind of plain description, then backed up by the official definition, helps learners grasp the concept quickly and correctly.
• Use Examples to Illustrate Coercion: Education efforts should frame trafficking through real-life scenarios that highlight coercion and exploitation. For instance: “A trafficker might pretend to offer a job, but then trap someone in terrible working conditions with no pay, using threats – that’s forced labor trafficking.” Or, “A person might befriend a teen and then trick or pressure them into sex work where the person takes all the money – that’s sex trafficking.” By explicitly pointing out the fraud, force, or manipulation in each example, the language reinforces what makes it trafficking. This approach trains the audience to spot the red flags of trafficking in various situations.
• Clarify What Trafficking Is Not: Part of accessible framing is dispelling confusion. Educators should plainly say, for example, “Trafficking isn’t about transportation – that’s smuggling. Trafficking is about exploitation, holding someone captive in a situation they can’t escape for profit” (). Comparing and contrasting terms in simple language (trafficking vs smuggling, trafficking vs consensual sex work, etc.) can be very effective. Visual aids or charts that show “Trafficking = coercion/exploitation” vs “Smuggling = consent to illegal transport” help cement the correct understanding.
• Reinforce the Human Rights Aspect: In curricula or trainings, explicitly call trafficking a human rights violation. For example, teaching materials might state, “Human trafficking violates nearly every basic human right – freedom, safety, dignity. It is recognized internationally as a form of modern slavery and a serious crime in every country.” Framing it this way in educational contexts instills the idea that combating trafficking is part of the broader commitment to human rights. This can inspire students or trainees to see anti-trafficking work as morally important, not just legally necessary.
• Encourage Sensitive Communication: When training professionals (like teachers, healthcare workers, or police), include guidance on victim-centered language. Emphasize referring to individuals as “trafficked persons,” “exploited persons,” or “survivors” rather than terms like “hooker,” “slave,” or “illegal immigrant.” Role-play or examples can show how different wording changes the response: e.g., calling someone a “prostitute” might lead to stigma or blame, whereas saying “a young woman exploited by a trafficker” immediately signals victim status and need for help. By teaching future front-line responders this careful use of language, we improve the chances that victims will be treated with compassion and that the crime will be correctly identified.

Conclusion

In summary, rethinking the terminology around human trafficking is not just an exercise in semantics – it’s a crucial strategy for clarifying the issue and mobilizing effective action. Terms that foreground coercion, exploitation, and the loss of freedom (such as calling it modern slavery or plainly describing it as an “exploitation-based crime”) resonate more strongly with the public and policymakers than jargon or misnomers. We’ve seen organizations and governments adapt their language – from legal definitions to media campaigns – and those shifts have helped correct misconceptions (like the need for movement across borders) and have placed the focus on traffickers’ abuse and victims’ trauma. By using accurate, empathetic, and accessible language in public awareness, policy, and education, we make the reality of human trafficking impossible to misunderstand or ignore. This improved understanding, in turn, fosters greater public support for anti-trafficking efforts, more victim-centered policies, and ultimately, a stronger global commitment to ending these forms of human exploitation (House Approves Updated Language in Statutes Related to Child Sex Trafficking).

Sources:

• U.S. Department of State – Understanding Human Trafficking: Definition emphasizing traffickers exploiting victims through force, fraud, or coercion (Human Trafficking Rights | Workplace Fairness) (Human Trafficking Rights | Workplace Fairness).
• Walk Free Foundation (Global Slavery Index) – Terminology explanation: “modern slavery” as an umbrella term for exploitation one cannot escape due to coercion/abuse of power (Terminology | Walk Free).
• Hope for Justice – Human Trafficking & Modern Slavery: Common Misconceptions: modern slavery defined as control of a person for profit by exploiting vulnerability (Human Trafficking & Modern Slavery: Common Misconceptions | Hope for Justice); clarifying that trafficking does not require transportation and is an exploitation-based crime () ().
• Oklahoma House of Representatives (2024) – Press release on changing “child prostitution” to “child sex trafficking” in law: underscores the importance of terminology in correctly framing minors as victims (House Approves Updated Language in Statutes Related to Child Sex Trafficking) (House Approves Updated Language in Statutes Related to Child Sex Trafficking).
• Polaris Project – Language Matters blog: guidance on avoiding terms/imagery that misrepresent trafficking and on using survivor-centered language (Language Matters: 5 Ways Your Words Impact Trafficking Survivors – Polaris) (Language Matters: 5 Ways Your Words Impact Trafficking Survivors – Polaris).
• NSVRC (National Sexual Violence Resource Center) – Critique on “modern day slavery” term: cautions about historical context and using accurate, non-exploitative language when drawing parallels (Reconsidering the Use of the Terminology ‘Modern Day Slavery’ in the Human Trafficking Movement | National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC)).

My company (Five Blocks) continues to grow and that means we are always looking for great people.

So far we have been incredibly fortunate to have attracted a really talented group who works very well together.

In the process I have seen a lot of CVs and some of the stand out more than others. Choosing a good design shouldn’t be rocket science – don’t reinvent the wheel. Look online and find an impressive looking template and adapt (copy!) – if you have to pay for the template – it’s probably worth it. A template will save you decisions and time.

Pro tip: if you put something unusual on your CV or in your cover letter it will probably catch the attention of the reader.

I recommend the following: do something to tell the reader how you are special.

What’s your superpower? If you feel you have one (and other people agree…) share that!

Examples could include:

• Great at explaining complex ideas to clients.
• Meticulous at note-taking
• Excited by and rise to new challenges
• Adept at leading programs

If you shine in a specific area definitely find a way of sharing that, otherwise we could miss it and miss out on hiring a great candidate!

The most critical pieces of managing your brand’s online reputation is having a plan. This may sound obvious, but most Fortune 100 companies and top executives who we meet, have no plan for their online reputation.

What do I mean by a plan?

Think of an online reputation crisis as you would a gopher hole that has appeared in your front garden. Companies reach out to Five Blocks to fill in that hole and plant some new flowers where the hole once was. That’s not what I mean by a plan – that’s a reaction to a problem.

Planning your online reputation means planning the garden start-to-finish. Some of the steps you will want to consider when planning the online presence for your brand or key executives.

1. Who are the key stakeholders who will be seeing your online presence? (media/reporters, regulatory bodies, prospective clients/partners, your own employees, etc.)
2. What impression do you want to make on them? (Messaging, What do other people think about you)
3. How are your key peers and/or competitors seen online? (Do they have multiple sites, images, wikipedia, video, social media presence, in-depth articles, ads, reviews etc.?)
4. What do your competitors have that could be opportunities for you?
5. Do you have sufficient content on owned sites, third-party articles, social media, crowd-sourced sites like Wikipedia and CrunchBase?
6. Is it easy for searchers to find accurate, timely, third-party content about your brand?
7. What are the important messages, articles, websites, that should be seen – and ones that should not?
8. If there is negativity appearing in your online reputation, what are the underlying causes? (old story that has not been put to rest? nothing new to talk about? people talking about you rather than your ideas?)
9. What are the potential threats your reputation could face and how have you prepared for them?

That’s a lot of chew on, but if you are not asking yourselves these questions you are not properly planing the online reputation for your brand or individual needs.

There was news recently that Google will let the subject of a knowledge graph edit, or at least directly suggest edits.

Today I saw this when I searched myself in Google.
Google provide more information here.

Google launched a deeper integration with Twitter – a new Twitter box.

I decided to tweet a few times and see if I could get my own Twitter box.

Guess – what, I could – and you can too!

Matching the twitter name to your searched name seems to help.

Also make sure to tweet several times.

See for example:

Update: It also helps to define your official Twitter page using schema.org markup, Wikidata and claiming your knowledge panel. This is especially important if you share a name with others who tweet regularly.