18 ms·
Backpage.com seized by U.S. justice authorities
- of 9y agoweird, backpage.com is still up for me.
- GCU-Empiricist 9y agoTry looking at any of the boards. The city listing of marketplaces is up but that is as far as it goes.
- bhouston 9y agoI think you have caches in your browser or on your network. When I visit, it is blocked on the main page.
- bifrost 9y agoYou might have some cached DNS, the domain was hijacked at the registrar level Domain Name: BACKPAGE.COM Registry Domain ID: 3112173_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.ascio.com Registrar URL: http://www.ascio.com Updated Date: 2018-04-06T17:58:13Z Creation Date: 1999-01-19T05:00:00Z Registry Expiry Date: 2025-01-19T05:00:00Z Registrar: Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA Registrar IANA ID: 106 Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@ascio.com Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +442070159370 Domain Status: ok https://icann.org/epp#ok Name Server: NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM Name Server: NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM DNSSEC: unsigned
- kemiller 9y agoFirst they came for the prostitutes, and I said nothing, because I was not a prostitute.
- bmpafa 9y agoWell, more accurately, they appear to have come for the pimps.
- GCU-Empiricist 9y agoHow is coming for the webpage that acts as a marketplace coming for the pimps?
- bmpafa 9y agoI was using 'pimps' as short-hand for the people brokering sex worker transactions, be they platform admins or some guy named Icepick. My sense is that, in most cases, sex workers do not act as their own agents, so I see backpage as a platform catering to pimps et al. Though I guess there's an argument to be made that sites like backpage make it easier for sex workers to disintermediate pimps, which I imagine would be a good thing.
- troncjb 9y ago> My sense is that, in most cases, sex workers do not act as their own agents Your sense is totally wrong. Sites like craigslist and backpage make it easier for sex workers to pre screen johns. Cold street approaches are nearly impossible to screen and very dangerous, hence pimps. This shutdown further entrenches the dominance of pimps over sex workers and makes sex work significantly more dangerous.
- always_good 9y agoNo. Sex workers regularly screen clients. Right from their phone. There are even Geocities-like web services that they can get a webpage at that have built-in screening workflows. And screening-agent-as-a-service's exist that will middleman for the sex worker. Shutting down online marketplaces removes the safest options that sex workers have.
- oneshot908 9y ago
- GCU-Empiricist 9y agoCraigslist declined to be the testcase, it will be interesting to see how this goes with lawmakers specifically targeting the site. Is tinder or other e-dating forums next?
- googlemike 9y agoOn the whole, this looks like a positive step in the right direction. What I wonder is how much effort did the US Justice dept / local authorities put into getting backpage.com to pull these kinds of listings? Craigslist seems to have cleaned itself up well.
- GCU-Empiricist 9y ago>Craigslist seems to have cleaned itself up well. Removing everything is cleaning up well? By the same analogy you should remove your toilet, permanently, from your house to flush it.
- d1zzy 9y agoAlso remove your penis since it can be used for naughty things.
- madamelic 9y agoOh, the naivety. :)
- DanBC 9y agoYou might want to watch the film Jane Doe, which details some of the court cases. OR read this: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report%202017.01.10%20FINAL.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report... tldr considerable legal effort went into getting backpage to remove ads for child sexual abuse, and Backpage vigorously fought that effort both in court and using technical measure that made it harder for law enforcement to rescue the children.
- gustavmarwin 9y agoThanks, I guess. Only accelerating the blockchain+ipfs combo.
- bhouston 9y agoIf authority wants to shut it down, they will figure out a way.
- gustavmarwin 9y agoLike thepiratebay? (yes it's down today, still is up most of the time)
- bhouston 9y agoPirate Bay is blocked in most of the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_blocking_access_to_The_Pirate_Bay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_blocking_access_to_T...
- gustavmarwin 9y ago"blocked" http://uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion/ http://uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion/
- gojomo 9y agoBoth sex worker anecdotes, and some larger studies, suggest the availability of such online services actually reduce violence, homicide, and sex trafficking. See for example: https://thinkprogress.org/craigslist-erotic-services-platform-3eab46092717/ https://thinkprogress.org/craigslist-erotic-services-platfor...
- troncjb 9y agoThis is important and most people don't realize this. This is the sex work equivalent of banning drug reagent kits.
- koolba 9y agoI think a better analogy is a safe injection site for heroin users.
- sli 9y agoEh, that seems a little too loaded, all things considered. But definitely accurate in this case.
- djsumdog 9y agoI don't think that's a good analogy at all. People have been hiring prostitutes for centuries. These sites help sex workers take control of their industry and bodies, vs being depending on street walking and abusive pimps. The big danger in America is the equality between prostitute and sex trafficking. They are not the same thing, and yet we're being fed the line that they are (except in some counties in Nevada).
- opportune 9y agoThis is definitely true. These days it seems law enforcement and news agencies seem to use the terms synonymously. It's a very worrying trend because "sex trafficking" sounds much worse than just regular-ole prostitution.
- bmpafa 9y agoI vacillate on this. On the one hand, I don't think prostitution should be illegal. On the other hand, it's not clear whether marketplaces like backpage bring the black-market closer to the light of day & make things safer for sex workers, or if they amplify demand to the point where suppliers have incentive to find new sex workers using more and more coercive methods.
- jordigh 9y agoYeah, me too. It's hard to know what to believe. The thing is, those engaged in commercial sex have a vested interest in defending deregulation of all parts of it: that way they make more money. If you were to try to pass legislation that, for example, would require a license to purchase sex and that the license would be granted only upon passing sexual health medical exams, people selling sex would see this as an obstacle to getting as many clients as possible. I know several people think you can just tell at a glance if someone has an STI and that condoms give all the protection you need. I think there are a lot of vulnerable people in the sex trade who just aren't speaking up because, well, they're vulnerable. Not everyone is vulnerable, of course. There are those who are perfectly ok and happy and vocal. But that can't be everyone.
- shkkmo 9y ago> people selling sex would see this as an obstacle to getting as many clients as possible What is your basis for this assertion? I think having a tool that makes it easier to vet clients could just as easily be a boon to many sex workers that would allow them to safely see more clients?
- jordigh 9y agoI've often seen sex workers object to that sort of thing online. They really don't want their clients to face any obstacle at all. People often advocate for checking the sexual health of the sellers, but you never hear about the same checks for the buyers. Why is that? It's pretty likely a sex worker will chime in on this thread. Then we'll hear their opinions first-hand.
- JshWright 9y agoBackpage was a major example of why SESTA/FOSTA was "necessary". It seems convenient that it wasn't taken down until after the passage of SESTA (despite the fact that the takedown did not leverage any of the new provisions, AFAICT (EDIT: as cft points out, the bill has not yet been signed by the President, so clearly it was not necessary))
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- cft 9y agoSESTA has not been signed by Trump yet afaik. In this case, it actually shows that to take down Backpage SESTA was unneeded.
- diabeetusman 9y agoYep, hasn't been signed yet (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180406/13555839585/doj-seizes-shuts-down-backpagecom-before-sesta-has-even-been-signed.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180406/13555839585/doj-s...)
- iooi 9y agoI'm curious if this only made possible by the recent SESTA/FOSTA law that was passed. It's not like Backpage is anything new, so why take it down now? If it is related to those laws, this is significant precedent for websites being responsible for user posted content. I'm afraid of what it's going to do to communities like Reddit and HN. If I post a zero-day in the comments section here, YC could be responsible for the damages it causes.
- delecti 9y agoAs far as I can tell, SESTA/FOSTA hasn't been signed into law yet.
- totalZero 9y ago> I'm curious if this only made possible by the recent SESTA/FOSTA law that was passed. It's not like Backpage is anything new, so why take it down now? It has not been signed into law yet, so it couldn't be. Now that the seizure has happened, the bill wouldn't apply to it even if signed, because A1S9 of the US Constitution states: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. Here's the legislation: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865
- dragonwriter 9y ago> I'm curious if this only made possible by the recent SESTA/FOSTA law that was passed. That hasn't been signed into law yet, though the claim that they couldn't effectively deal with sites like Backpage without it was one of the (blatantly false, and now even more clearly so) selling points of the law.
- balozi 9y agoThey are coming for porn next.
- MentallyRetired 9y agoThey'll have to pry it from my cold, dead, sticky hands!
- drawkbox 9y agoYeah 'sex trafficking' is really code name for porn for many of the orgs pushing these changes. I wonder how long reddit NSFW subreddits last. The argument that porn leads to more sex trafficking is a false equivalence, faulty comparison and false analogy. You could argue prostitution being illegal instead of legal contributes to more sex trafficking. I think keeping legal porn and making prostitution legal help as it is something that is always in demand, fighting it makes it more unsafe in underground markets. Things people will do no matter if it is illegal or legal that harm noone and is consenting adults or something you do to your own body, it is better to have it in a mainstream market so it can be more easily regulated and ultimately safer than black/underground markets. People pushing these laws think if you have a law the activity stops, yet it only makes it worse and more dangerous. Same with abortion, same with drug wars, same with abstinence education over sex education, basically any moral laws beyond civil rights does not work to change behavior and can make it worse. For proof of this see alcohol prohibition, the 18th amendment and then the 21st when they realize their mistake. You could also argue the drug wars falls under that. You could also argue that there would be LESS human trafficking if prostitution was legal.
- jeffreyrogers 9y agoI think porn has a pretty strong history of 1st amendment protection in the US. Some porn companies could probably be prosecuted for how they treat their employees/contractors, but I don't think that's a bad thing.
- drawkbox 9y agoLarry Flynt is an American statesman and hero in the aspect of 1st amendment protections. We probably need a 'Right to Body' amendment that protects what you do with your own body, prostitution and drugs would fall under that ending illegal prostitution making it legal and ending the longest prohibition ever in the drug wars.
- MentallyRetired 9y agoThis is akin to seizing a house in which trafficking occurs.
- viraptor 9y agoJust at the wrong scale. Try "closing a large town where trafficking occurs".
- DanBC 9y agoIt really isn't. It's akin to seizing a house when the owner tells the criminal gangs how to advertise to evade law enforcement attention. Backpage knew exactly what was happening (the drugging, kidnapping, and rape of children for money being advertised on backpage), and they actively encouraged it. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report%202017.01.10%20FINAL.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report...
- justherefortart 9y agoWho's paying you to post this same shit over and over?
- DenisM 9y agoDanBC kind of ticked me off with his repeated posts too, but then I read the link he posted. It's quite bad. Read the first two pages, and you will start re-posting that link too.
- justherefortart 9y agoYou're assuming it's honest and not political fodder as well. Nah, the Congress would NEVER do that, right?
- DanBC 9y agoAssume for a moment that the politicians lie at every opportunity. You don't have to believe them. You can read the report and source the court documents. Those will tell you what Backpage themselves said: We knew about it, we didn't have to do anything because of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
- danso 9y agoLegal problems against Backpage have been brewing for awhile. Its CEO was arrested in 2016 and charged with pimping. The pimping charges have since been thrown out but he and his fellow execs face 27 other charges, including money laundering: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article168969032.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article168969032.html
- creaghpatr 9y agoYup, people would like to spin this as the government cracking down on garden-variety prostitution, yet Backpage in particular has many dubious ties to child trafficking.
- AFNobody 9y agoIt isn't a spin because it has resulted in a crack down in garden variety prostitution and a shutdown of multiple services (including ones that were purely defensive exercises of free speech, such as unsafe/bad date lists).
- creaghpatr 9y agoI expect the coming allegations will detail conspiracy to commit a crime and/or RICO between the people running the site and sex traffickers. The key thing that will need to be proven is the complicity of the admins, although if they are already seizing the site I expect the authorities have what a judge or grand jury feels is enough evidence to warrant the seizure.
- AFNobody 9y agoThe problem is, they passed a bunch of legal changes recently under the guise of "Well, it is because Backpage cannot be brought to Justice." And now, well, "Oh yeah we had the power all along" which is what your comment is stating as your belief. That is why your claims about spin are problematic to me. You are ignoring the background of the situation to make a very narrow claim about "spin" when the claims of "spin" are about the laws they passed citing Backpage.
- randyrand 9y agoOh no, people paying for sex?! The horror!
- LifeLiverTransp 9y agoHooray, conservative upswing on the moral sinus curve that is us-history. Remember its okay to cheer laws on, that feel right in your guts, as long as one does not think about the consequences and props up a non-sensical tear-filled story to build up some outrage shield. Just look at this incoherent rambling - this copy pasted together nonsense, that stops making sense the moment your tears no longer flow: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-backpage-com-and-sex-trafficking/ https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-need... Okay, if every human beeing endavouring in prostitution had its own physical server, its own craigs-list equivalent of a web-page, marketing only its services- this would be not covered by the law? Or is even programming such a p2p service - no matter for what it is used now a felony?
- madamelic 9y ago> Or is even programming such a p2p service - no matter for what it is used now a felony? I've wondered this as well. I am not big into anything illegal, but I think this increasing censorship is alarming. Unfortunately, it has also chilled my desire to help build such services because they'll just slap me with money laundering or RICO or whatever they want.
- paulie_a 9y agoYou need to actually do something incredibly stupid to find yourself in the position. Sorry to say, your software skills are not that important. When you cross the line to asking "how can I make your criminal activities easier" you might have a problem then. Ie that guy that got busted for selling custom blackberries and admitted they were perfect for selling narcotics
- golemiprague 9y agoConservatives? most of the drive against prostitution comes from feminists and the lefties.
- dragonwriter 9y agoBackpage.com was a general purpose onlined classified system that included a handful of adult services sections among dozens of others. The use of “sex marketplace” here explains the basis of the seizure, but is misleading as a description of the site seized (Unlike, say, the myredbook.com seizure, which was a straight-up sex marketplace.)
- paulie_a 9y agoI recall visiting Backpage 4-5 years ago to crosspost some stuff I was trying to sell on CL. I took one look and closed the tab. It was incredibly obvious what their business was focused on.
- fencepost 9y agoI think they started as a general purpose classifieds, but there were a lot of other options for all the non-sex ads so they lost a lot of the "general purpose" users and attrition led to them mostly being prostitution classifieds.
- Natsu 9y agoThere's a little more than just that being alleged here: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report%202017.01.10%20FINAL.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report...
- tyingq 9y agoSearched a bit, and it appears that eccie.net might be doing more volume than the one or two forums on backpage. Curious why they are not targeted as well. Maybe better "provider" screening for underage girls?
- DanBC 9y agoBackpage was an active participant. They knew what was happening and encouraged it. You can find more info here: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report%202017.01.10%20FINAL.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report...
- justherefortart 9y agoLmfao, you don't know what eccie is then do you? I trust the Admins of Backpage about as much as I trust the Senate.
- gregoryrueda 9y agoShouldn’t decentralized systems prevent this type of seizure. What’s keeping someone from building a Blockchain version of backpage?
- paulie_a 9y ago> what's keeping someone Reality, block chain is not the answer to every question
- Sargos 9y agoThey are. It's called PinkDate [https://pinkdate.is/ https://pinkdate.is/]
- sintaxi 9y agoBecause this isn't about being a sex worker. The goal is to profit off the exploitation of others. Thats why this isn't on a blockchain.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jgalt212 9y agoThis is horrible. I don't get invited to parties at the Playboy mansion (like our Dear Leader). How am I supposed to meet sex workers now?
- code_duck 9y agoI guess if you were to put out an ad saying that you want to hire people to have sex with you on video for commercial purposes, that would be OK.
- ryan-allen 9y agoOh, the irony.
- Mustache 9y agoI have a real estate business and this is one of the sites I have used to post my real estate listings. It wasn't a large part of business, but I did get regular leads from the site. I mostly used craigslist, facebook and zillow, but this was a solid 4th place source of leads for me. I'm self employed and these sites are how I make my living. So not all of the users are posting sex ads. I don't like the title calling it a sex marketplace. It makes it sounds like this is the only thing on the website.
- dang 9y agoOk we took "Sex marketplace" out of the title above.
- gregorymichael 9y agoI can buy a shirt at Whole Foods. It's still a grocery store.
- stephengillie 9y agoIs this where sex dungeons are bought and sold? You know, the kind of place you rent on KinkBNB.
- Mustache 9y agoI have a real estate business and this is one of the sites I have used to post my real estate listings. It wasn't a large part of my business, but I did get regular leads from the site. I mostly used craigslist, facebook and zillow, but this was a solid 4th place source of leads for me. I'm self employed and these sites are how I make my living. So not all of the users are posting sex ads. I don't like the title calling it a sex marketplace. It makes it sounds like this is the only thing on the website.
- samsung123 9y agolol where are all the male politicians going to turn to know?
- jsoc815 9y agoWould guess that the timing isn't coincidental... https://www.yahoo.com/news/concerned-evangelical-christians-meet-trump-184300704.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/concerned-evangelical-christians-...
- fipple 9y agoMost likely effect of pushing this marketplace underground will be to reduce its size (total sex transactions per year) but make it much more dangerous for those who continue to participate (both buyers and sellers).
- rdl 9y agoAn outright prostitution marketplace (review site, advertising, transaction facilitation) seems like one of the most obvious businesses for jurisdictional arbitrage. It's not illegal in some markets (although I'm not sure which); unlike an online service which holds assets, there's no real need to identify or know the site operators. The natural advertisers on such a site are either porn/adult affiliates or prostitutes themselves, none of which would have problems contracting with an offshore entity. Bitcoin today, especially if you couldn't use any of the major wallet providers, is probably beyond the usability cliff for people in this market, but it's enough of a closed market that some kind of payment system should be bootstrapable.
- Natsu 9y agoAsk the Pirate Bay how well that jurisdictional arbitrage works out.
- rdl 9y agoThey didn't have a single jurisdiction where their activity was actually legal, hence no ability to arbitrage. Prostitution is legal in at least some places, and it would be easy to find a jurisdiction which, for money, would permit a prostitution-organizing site which exempted the local jurisdiction.
- Natsu 9y agoNot quite true, they had a fair argument that it was legal to begin with, but significant international pressure put an end to that in relatively short order.
- PrimHelios 9y agoCan we stop treating sex workers like second class citizens? Fucking Christ, getting rid of vetted escort aggregates like Backpage will only increase trafficking. FOSTA and SESTA are anti-sex work bills disguised as sex trafficking bills so that politicians can attack anybody criticizing them.
- sintaxi 9y agoTake a deep breath and read the article. The DOJ Child Exploitation department is driving this shutdown so lets see the charges and evidence before proclaiming overreach. If the shutdown is unlawful the owner will be able to sue for damages so I'm guessing the authorities likely have something more damning than a vetted escort service.
- PrimHelios 9y agoAre you serious? These bills make any website liable for escort services. Craigslist removed their personals section, Twitter as shadowbanned all sex workers providing escort services, etc. This bill is clearly bullshit and intended to attack sex workers.
- sintaxi 9y agoI've got news for you, any individual or business is liable for knowingly aiding criminal activity. If you read the FBI report you would know that the issue is not that criminal activity was happening on their site, it is that the site knew child exploitation was happening and they helped modify the wording of the ads to avoid law enforcement.
- PrimHelios 9y agoIf you read the bill you would know that's bull shit. An FBI report is not a credible source.
- sintaxi 9y ago
- ryan-allen 9y agoTo be relaunched offshore in 3.. 2.. 1.. What I found fascinating about backpage was the 'car parts' sales. It was all blatant drug advertising! 'Bumper for 79 Ford, 420, ice, whatever else you want'.
- DenisM 9y agoEveryone who's decrying the demise of backpage as a safe and beneficial place, please take a moment and read the first two pages of the Senate Report. Backpage had a system in place to detect ads offering e.g. child sex and... edit those ads to conceal their criminal nature from detection by rephrasing the give-away words with less obvious ones. You would think they would report those ads, but no - they concealed. [1] https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report%202017.01.10%20FINAL.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report...
- peterwwillis 9y agoI don't think anyone's questioning whether the site facilitated child sex trafficking. I think they're questioning whether shutting them down does more harm than good.
- adventured 9y agoIt's not shutting down backpage that is the critical issue. As an operating business there's zero question it should be shut down for the egregious trafficking crimes they commited and its executives prosecuted aggressively where possible. The question is: whether adult sex worker sites in general should be legal. I think the answer to that is very clearly yes. If you allow the market for adult sex worker sites to exist, backpage becomes trivial to replace, the market will take care of that overnight.
- drawkbox 9y agoI read the report [1] and two pages you mentioned and it seems like a reach, in fact it has me more worried about the overreach and blaming them for trafficking after reading their major points against backpage. The arguments amount to backpage having a profanity/ad filter upon entering new ads and that their moderation/reporting on anything that got through was not fast enough. Backpage essentially had a profanity and bad term filter on their ad posting software, like any site has when you post anything to take out derogatory terms. The report says backpage 'knowingly concealed evidence of criminality' for removing bad terms? They didn't want people posting ads with these terms because they were bad words, not that they supported it. > First, Backpage has knowingly concealed evidence of criminality by systematically editing its “adult” ads. As early as 2006, Backpage executives began instructing staff responsible for screening ads (known as “moderators”) to edit the text of adult ads to conceal the true nature of the underlying transaction. By October 2010, Backpage executives formalized a process of both manual and automated deletion of incriminating words and phrases, primarily through a feature called the “Strip Term From Ad Filter.” > The terms that Backpage has automatically deleted from ads before publication include [insert terms that are bad] When a user submitted an adult ad containing one of these “stripped” words, Backpage’s Strip Term From Ad filter would immediately delete the discrete word and the remainder of the ad would be published. That seems like ANY site filter out there and included bad words, derogatory words and words that traffickers might use to block them. Because they posted the ad later doesn't mean they 'knowingly concealed' it, it just means they blocked ads that have words they don't want advertised i.e. derogatory or bad words or words that seem underage even if it was a legal worker such as 'school girl outfit'. They eventually even started blocking outright but let the user know what words were banned. Seemingly a basic profanity filter. > Over time, Backpage reprogrammed its electronic filters to reject an ad in its entirety if it contained certain egregious words suggestive of sex trafficking. But the company implemented this change by coaching its customers on how to post “clean” ads for illegal transactions. When a user attempted to post an ad with a forbidden word, the user would receive an error message identifying the problematic word choice to “help” the user, as Ferrer put it. For example, in 2012, a user advertising sex with a “teen” would get the error message: “Sorry, ‘teen’ is a banned term.” Through simply redrafting the ad, the user would be permitted to post a sanitized version. The items above seem mainly focused at adult sex workers. Basically legal sex workers using taboo words not trafficking... everyone knows 'teen' is a range starting at 18 and like under 30 on porn sites. Just strange that they call it concealing it when they are blocking it. The argument for child sex trafficking is weak as well. It blocked people under 18 posting, if you changed the date/age it would post. Not sure how that is bad either, it was blocking underage posters. This is hardly encouraging it. > Ferrer directed his technology consultant to create an error message when a user supplied an age under 18. He stated that, “An error could pop up on the page: ‘Oops! Sorry, the ad poster must be over 18 years of age.’” With a quick adjustment to the poster’s putative age, the ad would post. The argument against child sex trafficking is weak as well and again seems more focused at sex workers. > Backpage knows that it facilitates prostitution and child sex trafficking. In addition to the evidence of systematic editing described above, additional evidence shows that Backpage is aware that its website facilitates prostitution and child sex trafficking. Backpage moderators told the Subcommittee that everyone at the company knew the adult-section ads were for prostitution and that their job was to “put[] lipstick on a pig” by sanitizing them. Backpage also knows that advertisers use its site extensively for child sex trafficking, but the company has often refused to act swiftly in response to complaints about particular underage users—preferring in some cases to interpret these complaints as the tactics of a competing escort. Backpage may also have tried to manipulate the number of child-exploitation reports it forwards to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The statements, unless there is other supporting evidence, seem like conjecture and again mainly focused at online prostitution advertising not trafficking. The company employees said "everyone at the company knew the adult-section ads were for prostitution and that their job was to “put lipstick on a pig” by sanitizing them". Well yeah because that is what that section was for probably. How does that relate to child trafficking? Just because they weren't fast to moderate reports doesn't mean they condoned it, "refused to act swiftly in response to complaints". The items about delayed reporting is bad and if they knowingly had underage people on there that is bad, but most of that just seems like conjecture and the reporting/moderation delays can simply be just that slow processes at any company, on a large site it might take time to moderate it. This still seems like an attack on sex workers who are adult and the site backpage, the report throws in 'child sex trafficking' to make it seem worse. As if backpage wanted to threaten their whole market position for sex workers and revenues for illegal activity. Really surprised this whole argument basically is against their profanity/term filter to PREVENT bad postings and they were later moderating it and reporting it just not fast enough apparently. You can't even get a response from youtube quickly but backpage can respond to every claim 24x7. This is an attack on online sex worker advertising full on. [1] https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report%202017.01.10%20FINAL.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report...
- art187 9y agoI worked with the defense department on tracking human trafficking for several years. Backpage was literally the front door to so much trafficking. There are many steps the site could have taken to stop trafficking but it didn’t. The consensual sex worker should not rely on a marketplace that allows the abuse of children and enslaved persons.
- codezero 9y agoThe consensual sex worker is demonized exactly the same regardless of where they seek to sell their services.
- art187 9y agoThis is not true. I realize that Backpage was the platform that had the largest audience after red book was shut down. If you look at sites in Germany and Australia the sex worker doesn’t have to hide since laws protect them. Legalizing sex work is a different path than condoning slavery.
- codezero 9y agoYou’re right, I should have added “in the US.”
- jijji 9y agoSo what happens when the women (the vast majority of which are choosing this lifestyle to make money to feed their kids), start posting ads in the for sale section, the jobs wanted section, etc? They should remove every news paper, every web site that allows users to post messages, basically every web site on the internet.
- mxpxrocks10 9y agoWe put together this blog post to follow the DNS data: Backpage.com Seizure and What Happens to Seized Domains https://securitytrails.com/blog/backpage-seize https://securitytrails.com/blog/backpage-seize
- HIPisTheAnswer 9y agoSexual repression is the cornerstone of fascist societies. Source: Mass Psychology of Fascism, Wilhelm Reich
- drawkbox 9y agoInteresting side aspect to the report is that Larkin and Lacey reside in Arizona and owned the New Times and Village Voice [1], they separated backpage content from those. Both the New Times and Village Voice are advocates on issues of civil rights and they cause lots of problems for authoritarian politicians and organizations trying to control people's lives [2][3]. Lacey and Larkin Fund is a huge supporter/funder of groups like ACLU and immigrant groups who donate heavily to civil right causes[2][6]. Part of the attack on backpage is political in my opinion after looking at the facts. > Backpage started as the literal back page of the New Times, filled with classified ads. > Lacey and Larkin, former New Times executives who sold off the newspaper chain in 2012, retained the lucrative interest in the Backpage website. Both Larkin and Lacey are big civil right advocates and donate heavily to civil rights causes, sex rights, gay rights and immigrant rights [2][3] and the New Times attack politicians for corruption on the regular. After they attacked Arpaio they had nearly a decade of attacks from him and associated groups [5]. They did a strange tactic attacking Larkin and Lacey going after New Times readers. >In October 2007, Maricopa County sheriff's deputies arrested Lacey and Larkin on charges of revealing secret grand jury information concerning the investigations of the New Times's long-running feud with Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio. In July 2004, the New Times published Arpaio's home address in the context of a story about his real estate dealings, which the County Attorney's office was investigating as a possible crime under Arizona state law. A special prosecutor served Village Voice Media with a subpoena ordering it to produce "all documents" related to the original real estate article, as well as "all Internet web site traffic information" to a number of articles that mentioned Arpaio. [5] Arpaio tried to get all information on all Phoenix New Times readers and the paper has been known to be tough on Arpaio overreaches in Arizona on immigrants and non-conservatives. > The prosecutor further ordered Village Voice Media to produce the IP addresses of all visitors to the Phoenix New Times website since January 1, 2004, as well as which websites those readers had been to prior to visiting. As an act of "civil disobedience", Lacey and Larkin published the contents of the subpoena on or about October 18, which resulted in their arrests the same day.On the following day, the county attorney dropped the case after declining to pursue charges against the two. [5] > The special prosecutor's subpoena included a demand for the names of all people who had read the Arpaio story on the newspaper's website. It was the revealing of the subpoena information by the New Times which led to the arrests. Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas dropped the charges less than 24 hours after the two were arrested [5] > In the weeks following the arrests, members of the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, of which the Phoenix New Times is a member, provided links on their websites to places where Arpaio's address could be found. This was done to show solidarity with the Phoenix New Times.[5] There is a strange section of the Backpage report attacking Lacey and Larkin for selling it to an outside investor who is offshore. They appear to hide ownership from them some might say wisely if it is being the whipping boy for 'trafficking' claims when really it is a sex worker ad website [4]. > Third, despite the reported sale of Backpage to an undisclosed foreign company in 2014, the true beneficial owners of the company are James Larkin, Michael Lacey, and Carl Ferrer. Acting through a complex chain of domestic and international shell companies, Lacey and Larkin lent Ferrer over $600 million to purchase Backpage from them. But as a result of this deal, Lacey and Larkin retain significant financial and operational control, hold almost complete debt equity in the company, and still receive large distributions of company profits. According to the consultant that structured the deal, moreover, this transaction appears to provide no tax benefits. Instead, it serves only to obscure Ferrer’s U.S.-based ownership and conceal Lacey and Larkin’s continued beneficial ownership. I'd say part of the attack on backpage is political and shuts down a big political donor for civil rights and typically liberal aims [2]. It seems them selling off the New Times, Village Voice and moving ownership overseas from 2012-2014 irked some politicians and authoritarians. The Backpage report claims of 'trafficking' amounts to simply a profanity filter that backpage created to PREVENT people posting bad ads or possible 'trafficking' not encouraging it [4]. The report says Backpage 'knowingly concealed evidence of criminality' for removing bad terms being posted due to a profanity/word filter? They didn't want people posting ads with these terms because they were bad words, not that they supported it[4]. That argument is like saying, because a site profanity filter removed racial slurs that the site was 'knowingly concealing evidence of racism'. The whole idea was to block it not some devious hiding scheme. Understand backpage made lots of money, they wouldn't risk it for 'trafficking' and 'child trafficking' is such a reach that it just seems tacked on to the report with no evidence of it. Of course backpage doesn't want bad words posted to their ads, doesn't every classified site? New Times, Village Voice and by association, Backpage, have all been targets in Arizona by Arpaio, McCain and authoritarian orgs mainly because they are tough on authoritarian politicians including Trump, it seems there was more to this attack than what is stated in the report. The New Times has a history in being pro-civil rights and anti-war. > The Phoenix New Times is a free alternative weekly Phoenix, Arizona newspaper, published each Thursday. It was the founding publication of New Times Media (now Village Voice Media), but The Village Voice is now the flagship publication of that company.[5] The paper was founded in 1970 by a group of students at Arizona State University, led by Frank Fiore, Karen Lofgren, Michael Lacey, Bruce Stasium, Nick Stupey, Gayle Pyfrom, Hal Smith, and later, Jim Larkin, as a counterculture response to the Kent State shootings in the spring of that year. Gary Brennan played a role in its creation. According to the 20th Anniversary issue of the New Times, published on May 2, 1990, Fiore suggested that the anti-war crowd put out its own paper. The first summer issues were called the Arizona Times and assembled in the staff's La Crescenta apartments across from ASU. The Arizona Times was renamed the New Times as the first college issue went to press in September 1970.[5] New Times pushes civil rights and personal freedoms including ending marijuana prohibition and calls out prohibitionists in Arizona, as well as other causes for personal freedom [7]. New Times has been kicking up dust on authoritarianism since the 70s. Lacey and Larkin also won a lawsuit against Arizona as recently as 2013 for false arrest which is still used to attack them [5]. > In December 2013, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors agreed to pay Phoenix New Times founders Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin $3.75 million to settle their false arrest lawsuit against the county defendants. Take a look at their civil rights fund to see what I mean about how they take authority orgs/politicians to task and encourage civil rights [2]. They have been trying to take down the New Times, Village Voice Media and Backpage for nearly a decade and a half [5]. The whole report on Backpage, and their owners Lacey and Larkin who started New Times and Village Voice, might be a massive ad hominem [4]. It also appears to be an attack on owners of alternative media influence and funding for civil rights matters. My guess is Lacey and Larkin, civil rights fighters that seem similar to Larry Flynt[2], won't let this just happen and they'll fight it. Most of the attacks on Backpage, and previously the New Times and Village Voice, attacks their character via ad hominems because they are causing trouble for authoritarians and pushing alternative news media funding, my guess is this takedown of Backpage is no different. [1] https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2018/04/06/fbi-raids-backpage-founders-sedona-home-website-down/494538002/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2018/04/0... [2] http://www.laceyandlarkinfronterafund.org/ http://www.laceyandlarkinfronterafund.org/ [3] http://www.phoenixmag.com/valley-news/i-fought-the-law-and.html http://www.phoenixmag.com/valley-news/i-fought-the-law-and.h... [4] https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report%202017.01.10%20FINAL.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_New_Times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_New_Times [6] https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2017/04/20/gop-pressures-kyrsten-sinema-on-backpage-donations/100683704/ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2017/0... [7] http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/here-are-the-prohibitionists-whove-donated-10-000-or-more-to-keep-marijuana-a-felony-in-arizona-8794628 http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/here-are-the-prohibition...
- cpr 9y agoHow about a reality check? https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/04/12/the_womens_march_and_backpagecom_a_sordid_story_136784.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/04/12/the_wo...
- jonny1 9y agoI noticed that backpage.mx and backpage.it are also down. Does this mean the US can seize non US domain extensions? Or are they down because they redirected to US site? That is odd.