5 ms·

Do you think backpage is actually less safe than working with a pimp? A place can be pretty bad and still preferable to the alternative if that alternative is b

• pharrington 9y ago
  No. Turns out that question is irrelevant, because Backpage and pimps were empirically compatible.
  • chc 9y ago
    You're drawing a false dilemma here. The question isn't "Was it possible for pimps to go on Backpage?" but "How easy was it to work without a pimp on Backpage versus on the street?" That's the argument people were making — not that nothing bad ever happened where Backpage was involved, but that sex workers feel more required to put themselves in bad situations in the absence of something like Backpage.
    • jakelazaroff 9y ago
      Likewise, the argument that people who support the takedown are making isn't "it was possible to use Backpage for prostitution", but "Backpage themselves were actively colluding with human traffickers". Maybe sex workers are less safe now that Backpage is gone, and that sucks — but it doesn't mean we let people working with human traffickers slide.
      • chc 9y ago
        If you look back a bit in the thread, the idea that I was disagreeing with is that this proves people were wrong when they said Backpage made many sex workers safer. I'm not saying we should let the Backpage people slide, but that the ideas "Backpage was involved in some very messed-up stuff that people should go to jail for" and "Backpage was better than the streets for sex workers on the whole" can both be true simultaneously.
• paxys 9y ago
  14-year old prostitutes weren't willingly signing up on Backpage. They were still managed by pimps. It was the pimps who were on (and actively helped by) the site. They were literally given tips to hide real ages from profiles to keep law enforcement away.
  • danielparks 9y ago
    Could you elaborate? I'm curious to read specifics.
    • paxys 9y ago
      A good place to start: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/backpage-senate-report-accuses-illegal-transactions-underage-sex-trafficking/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/backpage-senate-report-accuses-... > Backpage altered up to 80 percent of their ads before posting them online “by deleting words, phrases, and images indicative of criminality, including child sex trafficking.”
• stale2002 9y ago
  No. What I belive is that backpages makes trafficking massively more profitable. With less of a signal boost, people will be less incentivized to force people into trafficking in the first place. IE, that pimp might switch to drug dealing or some other industry, where they can make more money.
  • c22 9y ago
    But since they already have a stable of hoes and demand hasn't really subsided they'll probably just switch to another website.
    • lmm 9y ago
      Effective demand has subsided. Some people who used Backpage will find another site, but for many finding one won't be worth the effort and they'll find another way to amuse themselves that evening.
      • c22 9y ago
        Perhaps you're right. I didn't know Backpage was a thing until this news cycle, I guess I assumed that people who knew about it also know about other sites. Was this the only site online facilitating prostitution? Apparently not, since craigslist also shut down their personals section. Some of the stories by sex workers talk about using Backpage to network and vet Johns which implies to me that most users were regulars. I suspect regulars will not find something else to do this evening but will instead start by calling up past providers, rebuilding their connections, and likely end up on another site with even more features and less oversight operating on TOR.
        • lmm 9y ago
          > I didn't know Backpage was a thing until this news cycle, I guess I assumed that people who knew about it also know about other sites. Was this the only site online facilitating prostitution? It was the big name. It was the only one I'd heard of other than craigslist, and I thought craigslist shut down that section years ago. > Some of the stories by sex workers talk about using Backpage to network and vet Johns which implies to me that most users were regulars. It implies most clients of the kind of sex worker who participates in these discussions were regulars. It wouldn't necessarily be the same for trafficked women and children which is the case we're actually trying to stop. And even if it is, presumably there's some level of turnover; making it harder for new people to get into unconsenting sex slaves is still a win even if it does nothing about the existing client population. > likely end up on another site with even more features and less oversight Sounds like no oversight would be better than the oversight backpage had, if all that oversight did was hide that ads for children were for children while still letting those ads run. > operating on TOR I very much doubt it. Tor is a massive faff to use; maybe some people will move to a hidden site but it will be a big barrier to entry if so.