5 ms·

I posted a new thread w/ the NYT link [1], [2] because it had this helpful tidbit: A congressional investigation this year found that the website changed some

by themgt 10y ago

I posted a new thread w/ the NYT link [1], [2] because it had this helpful tidbit: A congressional investigation this year found that the website changed some of its adult classifieds to conceal the fact that the advertisements were for sex acts with minors. Mr. Ferrer was subpoenaed by a Senate subcommittee last fall to answer questions about reported child sex-trafficking ads, but he did not show up. Found to be covering up child sex trafficking by Congress and you just blow them off and don't change anything? That's the point where getting arrested shouldn't be much of a surprise. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/carl-ferrer-backpage-ceo-is-arrested.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/carl-ferrer-backpage-ce... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12658053 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12658053

SwellJoe 10y ago
Ah, that changes everything about this. I can't believe anyone would skip that detail when writing about this.
- colejohnson66 10y ago
  Either they didn't know, or are trying to spin the story a certain way
joecool1029 10y ago
NYT actually got the charges correct. The article in the above thread is incorrect about trafficking charges. It was conspiracy and pimping a minor. Link to full complaint: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/File%20endorsed%20Criminal%20Complaint%20tjy_Redacted.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/F...
makomk 10y ago
The website changed some of its adult clasifieds to conceal the fact that they were for sex acts with minors, or the people posting them changed them? Because one of these seems an awful lot more likely than the other, and I don't see how Congress could honestly have determined that the site itself did it. I suspect that someone's arguing that banning adverts for child sex is in fact concealing them because people work around the bans, but it's hard to find any information on the actual basis of this claim. Of note, it also seems that Backpage did report suspected child sex trafficking to the NCMEC, based on a statement by the NCMEC to Congress in 2015.[1] This appears to have been one of the things used against them, with the congressional reports mentioning the large proportion of reports that involved Backpage as proof that they were a child sex trafficking ring while omitting that they were the ones doing the reporting. [1] http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/?id=B087F957-02BD-4F58-8CFA-C47B42271928 http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/?id=B087F957-02BD-4F58-...
- asddddd 10y ago
  Congressional comments from when Backpage was held in contempt: > Our investigation showed that Backpage “edits” advertisements before posting them, by removing certain words, phrases, or images. For instance, they might remove a word or image that makes clear that sexual services are being offered for money. And then they would post this “sanitized” version of the ad. While this editing changes nothing about the underlying transaction, it tends to conceal the evidence of illegality. In other words, Backpage’s editing procedures, far from being an effective anti-trafficking measure, only served to sanitize the ads of illegal content to an outside viewer. Turns out NCMEC showed up for the hearing that Backpage skipped, and didn't have many nice things to say about Backpage. > “You see, it is sometimes hard to square Backpage’s public statements about its business practices with the reality on the ground. For example, the National Center recently was searching for a child who went missing – and is still missing – and found that she appeared in a sex advertisement on Backpage. That is sadly common. But what made this case even more incredible was that the Backpage ad actually contained a missing child poster of that same child. That poster had the child’s real name, real age, real picture, and the date she went missing. The other pictures in the ad included topless photos. We’d certainly like to know what supposedly market-leading screening and moderation procedures missed that one. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/senate-passes-portman-resolution-to-hold-backpagecom-in-contempt-of-congress https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/me...

by themgt 10y ago

SwellJoe 10y ago

Ah, that changes everything about this. I can't believe anyone would skip that detail when writing about this.

colejohnson66 10y ago
Either they didn't know, or are trying to spin the story a certain way

joecool1029 10y ago

NYT actually got the charges correct. The article in the above thread is incorrect about trafficking charges. It was conspiracy and pimping a minor. Link to full complaint: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/File%20endorsed%20Criminal%20Complaint%20tjy_Redacted.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/F...

makomk 10y ago

The website changed some of its adult clasifieds to conceal the fact that they were for sex acts with minors, or the people posting them changed them? Because one of these seems an awful lot more likely than the other, and I don't see how Congress could honestly have determined that the site itself did it. I suspect that someone's arguing that banning adverts for child sex is in fact concealing them because people work around the bans, but it's hard to find any information on the actual basis of this claim. Of note, it also seems that Backpage did report suspected child sex trafficking to the NCMEC, based on a statement by the NCMEC to Congress in 2015.[1] This appears to have been one of the things used against them, with the congressional reports mentioning the large proportion of reports that involved Backpage as proof that they were a child sex trafficking ring while omitting that they were the ones doing the reporting. [1] http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/?id=B087F957-02BD-4F58-8CFA-C47B42271928 http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/?id=B087F957-02BD-4F58-...

asddddd 10y ago
Congressional comments from when Backpage was held in contempt: > Our investigation showed that Backpage “edits” advertisements before posting them, by removing certain words, phrases, or images. For instance, they might remove a word or image that makes clear that sexual services are being offered for money. And then they would post this “sanitized” version of the ad. While this editing changes nothing about the underlying transaction, it tends to conceal the evidence of illegality. In other words, Backpage’s editing procedures, far from being an effective anti-trafficking measure, only served to sanitize the ads of illegal content to an outside viewer. Turns out NCMEC showed up for the hearing that Backpage skipped, and didn't have many nice things to say about Backpage. > “You see, it is sometimes hard to square Backpage’s public statements about its business practices with the reality on the ground. For example, the National Center recently was searching for a child who went missing – and is still missing – and found that she appeared in a sex advertisement on Backpage. That is sadly common. But what made this case even more incredible was that the Backpage ad actually contained a missing child poster of that same child. That poster had the child’s real name, real age, real picture, and the date she went missing. The other pictures in the ad included topless photos. We’d certainly like to know what supposedly market-leading screening and moderation procedures missed that one. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/media/senate-passes-portman-resolution-to-hold-backpagecom-in-contempt-of-congress https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/me...