5 ms·

Everyone 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

by DenisM 9y ago

Everyone 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 ago
I 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 ago
  It'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 ago
I 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...
cheez 9y ago
What do you think of this site? https://vipfavours.com/ https://vipfavours.com/ Looks like no pimps involved.
jijji 9y ago
In Backpage's defense, they were instructed to block those words by their legal team and law enforcement, as those words are not allowed to be posted because they indicate sexual favors in exchange for money, i.e. prostitution.
- xienze 9y ago
  They could have, you know, rejected the ads outright and/or passed the info on to law enforcement automatically. Simply filtering the words implies they knew what was going on but did just enough to (hopefully) have plausible deniability.
  - dmix 9y ago
    Yes exactly, I'd normally be a staunch defender of Backpage here, assuming they merely acted as a middle man ala Craigslist or any other listings site. Similar to ISPs with the Safe Harbour Act or Tor. But Backpage actively helped these guys create ads that won't trigger any red flags. Instead of blocking the posts, warning them, or straight up banning them, the listing wizard directly suggested ways to conceal illegal activity after detecting 'bad' keywords, in order to help allow the user to continue to use the site. This feature most likely had good intentions for other law abiding users, likely for the largely majority of cases, but it was pretty damn obvious how it also helps some seriously bad guys. You'd just have to look at some of the example keywords which would trigger this automated assistance... Backpage played an active role not just a reactionary passive one. Which is why I understand and support legal action against them - although I'm not sure seizing is the right approach, but that's another story.
    - dbg31415 9y ago
      So... let's walk through this... 1) Paying customer creates an ad (I haven't used Backpage, but I assume they paid to create ads). 2) Paying customer enters some words that the Government has told Backpage not to allow. 3) Backpage's automatic web form error message says... "Hey, you've added some words the Government won't let you use... sorry... it's not us, it's Uncle Sam." 4) Customer changes words to get around filters... I assume things like "sex" turns into "s3x" -- or whatever the bare minimum number of changes were to get around the censorship. 5) Customer posts ads, skirts Government censorship; feels smug and satisfied for beating the system. 6) Government isn't happy that the intent of the filtered words wasn't enforced... expected Backpage to have more (costly) manual review of ads, instead of just exact keyword blocks on ad creation. 7) Backpage was like, "Manual review would destroy our business model..." so they fought it... 8) Government took over and shut them down. Again, I haven't read anything on this... but that's my assumption based on how the Government and tech work. Am I wrong?

by DenisM 9y ago

peterwwillis 9y ago

I 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 ago
It'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 ago

I 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...

cheez 9y ago

What do you think of this site? https://vipfavours.com/ https://vipfavours.com/ Looks like no pimps involved.

jijji 9y ago

In Backpage's defense, they were instructed to block those words by their legal team and law enforcement, as those words are not allowed to be posted because they indicate sexual favors in exchange for money, i.e. prostitution.

xienze 9y ago
They could have, you know, rejected the ads outright and/or passed the info on to law enforcement automatically. Simply filtering the words implies they knew what was going on but did just enough to (hopefully) have plausible deniability.
- dmix 9y ago
  Yes exactly, I'd normally be a staunch defender of Backpage here, assuming they merely acted as a middle man ala Craigslist or any other listings site. Similar to ISPs with the Safe Harbour Act or Tor. But Backpage actively helped these guys create ads that won't trigger any red flags. Instead of blocking the posts, warning them, or straight up banning them, the listing wizard directly suggested ways to conceal illegal activity after detecting 'bad' keywords, in order to help allow the user to continue to use the site. This feature most likely had good intentions for other law abiding users, likely for the largely majority of cases, but it was pretty damn obvious how it also helps some seriously bad guys. You'd just have to look at some of the example keywords which would trigger this automated assistance... Backpage played an active role not just a reactionary passive one. Which is why I understand and support legal action against them - although I'm not sure seizing is the right approach, but that's another story.
  - dbg31415 9y ago
    So... let's walk through this... 1) Paying customer creates an ad (I haven't used Backpage, but I assume they paid to create ads). 2) Paying customer enters some words that the Government has told Backpage not to allow. 3) Backpage's automatic web form error message says... "Hey, you've added some words the Government won't let you use... sorry... it's not us, it's Uncle Sam." 4) Customer changes words to get around filters... I assume things like "sex" turns into "s3x" -- or whatever the bare minimum number of changes were to get around the censorship. 5) Customer posts ads, skirts Government censorship; feels smug and satisfied for beating the system. 6) Government isn't happy that the intent of the filtered words wasn't enforced... expected Backpage to have more (costly) manual review of ads, instead of just exact keyword blocks on ad creation. 7) Backpage was like, "Manual review would destroy our business model..." so they fought it... 8) Government took over and shut them down. Again, I haven't read anything on this... but that's my assumption based on how the Government and tech work. Am I wrong?