5 ms·

1. I "trust" that WalMart and McDonald's at least aren't willingly making money from sex-trafficking. If a representative of one of those companies were asked

by jfager 16y ago

1. I "trust" that WalMart and McDonald's at least aren't willingly making money from sex-trafficking. If a representative of one of those companies were asked the same question, I'd have zero problem with them saying something like "we do whatever we can to stop it". CL gets paid for these ads and claims to police them. It's a different standard. 3. Head on over to CL and tell me how hard it is for you to find a similar ad that's clearly for prostitution. It's a completely fair question, even if it does have a surface similarity to unfair gotcha-style questions. 4. I addressed this in a cousin comment.

roc 16y ago
People complain about sex-trafficking and prostitution on Craigslist. But CL didn't invent or newly-enable any of it. It all just concentrated from local newspaper classifieds. And I guarantee that CL is doing more to vet ads than any newspaper ever did. Clearly, CL is going above and beyond their legal requirement to vet these ads. Any article of substance on the topic will lay that out plain as day. So why do you feel it necessary to imply that you can't "trust" them, or that CL is willingly profiting from prostitution or human trafficking?
- jfager 16y ago
  It all just concentrated from local newspaper classifieds. Would you grant that sufficient concentration would make it a different class of problem? Clearly, CL is going above and beyond their legal requirement to vet these ads. Okay, so what? Nobody serious seems to be claiming anyone from CL should go to jail. The only argument I've heard is that whatever CL is doing isn't working, and they need to do more to actually address the problem. People certainly have the right to make this argument, don't they? So why do you feel it necessary to imply that you can't "trust" them, or that CL is willingly profiting from prostitution or human trafficking? If it's true that CL is willingly profiting from sex ads, and it's true that sex ads on CL are a primary tool of sex traffickers, and it's true that CL knows this, how is it not then the case that CL is willingly profiting from sex trafficking? I'm not saying or implying that it's their goal or their desire to do so, but the bottom line is that they are, and they could be doing more so that they aren't.

by jfager 16y ago

roc 16y ago

People complain about sex-trafficking and prostitution on Craigslist. But CL didn't invent or newly-enable any of it. It all just concentrated from local newspaper classifieds. And I guarantee that CL is doing more to vet ads than any newspaper ever did. Clearly, CL is going above and beyond their legal requirement to vet these ads. Any article of substance on the topic will lay that out plain as day. So why do you feel it necessary to imply that you can't "trust" them, or that CL is willingly profiting from prostitution or human trafficking?

jfager 16y ago
It all just concentrated from local newspaper classifieds. Would you grant that sufficient concentration would make it a different class of problem? Clearly, CL is going above and beyond their legal requirement to vet these ads. Okay, so what? Nobody serious seems to be claiming anyone from CL should go to jail. The only argument I've heard is that whatever CL is doing isn't working, and they need to do more to actually address the problem. People certainly have the right to make this argument, don't they? So why do you feel it necessary to imply that you can't "trust" them, or that CL is willingly profiting from prostitution or human trafficking? If it's true that CL is willingly profiting from sex ads, and it's true that sex ads on CL are a primary tool of sex traffickers, and it's true that CL knows this, how is it not then the case that CL is willingly profiting from sex trafficking? I'm not saying or implying that it's their goal or their desire to do so, but the bottom line is that they are, and they could be doing more so that they aren't.