So as I understand it: * They had a keyword filter that automatically stripped certain words (like Lolita and teenage) from an ad before it was posed. Usage o

So as I understand it: * They had a keyword filter that automatically stripped certain words (like Lolita and teenage) from an ad before it was posed. Usage of these words doesn't necessarily prove that the ad was for child sex trafficking. After all in Hollywood women are teenage heartthrobs into their 30s. I'm not sure the reason why they had this filter, but a poster in a previous thread said it was requested by law enforcement. * Because they facilitated prostitution their credit card facilities were removed by VISA/Mastercard and so they forced prostitutes to use bitcoin to buy ads. I think this is what the money laundering charge is relating to. I think that back page made a significant amount of money from prostitution ads. Because that is illegal in most of the US, they went through these elaborate processes (aka criminal conspiracy) to protect themselves from criminal charges. If they were knowingly hiding child sex trafficking they should have the book thrown at them. But at this stage, from what I have seen from what has been alleged there is nothing concrete to support that.