3 ms·

Yes, it's wall-to-wall quotes from Backpage staff about facilitating prostitution - which of course they are guilty of. But that's not what's at stake here in t

Yes, it's wall-to-wall quotes from Backpage staff about facilitating prostitution - which of course they are guilty of. But that's not what's at stake here in the court of public opinion, where there's rather a lot of people who believe it should be legal. The prosecution (also apparently you) is/are trying to convince us that these guys are knowingly facilitating child sex trafficking, which is something we can agree on is bad. So let's throw out all the points in the indictment that aren't child-specific? It just doesn't seem to leave much, unless you believe that every mention of the word "teen" is a case of child sex trafficking. I considered adding a variety of NSFW links here to the official "teen" category of popular porn tube sites, but I'm sure folks can find them on their own. And as I'm sure you know, it's not real. You make a lot out of the "max 500 reports per month" item, but given that it's likely a laborious manual process, how many do you want to report? There are thousands of ads from fake "lolitas" and "teens", none of which are any more credible than the porn tubes. The NCMEC doesn't want a bunch of spam either. If you'd like to call out any specific #s in the indictment for special attention, I'm happy to engage in an honest dialogue.

egko 8y ago
I don't think your argument makes much sense. "Teen" pornography has plausible deniability (or whatever you want to call it) because it can be produced in a way that ensures that the actors are adults (though even that isn't always true). You have no such defense when it comes to material that one can assume is unlicensed, produced in countries with no such (de facto or not) regulation or when it comes to something like prostitution. I assume they didn't verify age of the participants. Not like "tube sites" are a particularly high horse to begin with since there is plenty of material out there that is not only unlicensed or piracy, but verifiably stolen. Which anyone who even pretend to care about privacy should be against.
- miracle2k 8y ago
  The fact that a particular person in a pornographic video is underage is up to the government to proof if they want to convict you, say, of a child pornography charge. It does not matter where the material was produced, or what kind of records they kept. Now, the government may create laws that oblige a distributor of pornography to be in possession of such records, and someone how is not may be in violation of those laws. It also doesn't matter if the material is advertised as "teen" or not. Similarly, you may argue that a site like Backpage should be legal, as long as they verify the age of the advertisers. It's a rather strange argument, after all, they can't verify that the person they verify is the person that turns up at the appointment. But that is not the law. The government is instead alleging that there is a law that makes Backpage-like advertising of prostitution illegal, regardless of whether the ages were verified or not.
tptacek 8y ago
Wait, can you tell me what indictment you were reading, which was pages and pages of the evils of prostitution and just a few bits about what the Backpage staff did, and where the only thing they're accused of doing to groom child trafficking ads is stripping the word "lolita"? I'm genuinely curious about what your sourcing is now.
- stickfigure 8y ago
  https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-leads-effort-seize-backpagecom-internet-s-leading-forum-prostitution-ads https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-leads-effo... Please point out to me the #s that you find damning.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Did you read the indictment or the press release?
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Is one more relevant than the other?
      - tptacek 8y ago
        Obviously yes.
    - ryanlol 8y ago
      He's asking you for the #s, surely he's referring to the indictment with numbered chapters. Chapter #61 discusses this scheme. It's ridiculous to claim that any of the words used in the indictment strongly suggest child prostitution. >array of terms that are suggestive of child prostitution (e.g., "lolita," fresh," "high school," "tight," "young")
      - DanBC 8y ago
        We know Backpage did nothing about some underage ads because the girls who'd been trafficked tried to get those ads taken down and Backpage declined. > And in February 2010, a detective emailed Backpage to alert the company that a 17-year-old girl who tried to get Backpage to take down an advertisement of herself had been rebuffed: According to the detective, the girl “tried asking for [the ads] to be removed but was told they couldnt [sic] be until enough people reported her as potentially underage.”
DanBC 8y ago
> how many do you want to report? All of them?
- ryanlol 8y ago
  All of what though? It's not like backpage could possibly know who's underage and who isn't. Should every ad containing the word "tight" go to the NCMEC?
  - DanBC 8y ago
    Please read the document. Backpage have already admitted a lot of this stuff was happening.
    - miracle2k 8y ago
      They certainly did not. Please provide the # of the indictment or a specific source.
DanBC 8y ago
> So let's throw out all the points in the indictment that aren't child-specific? Are you missing the bits where children who were advertised on Backpage contacted backpage to get these ads removed, and backpage refused to do so? We have testimony from children.

egko 8y ago

I don't think your argument makes much sense. "Teen" pornography has plausible deniability (or whatever you want to call it) because it can be produced in a way that ensures that the actors are adults (though even that isn't always true). You have no such defense when it comes to material that one can assume is unlicensed, produced in countries with no such (de facto or not) regulation or when it comes to something like prostitution. I assume they didn't verify age of the participants. Not like "tube sites" are a particularly high horse to begin with since there is plenty of material out there that is not only unlicensed or piracy, but verifiably stolen. Which anyone who even pretend to care about privacy should be against.

miracle2k 8y ago
The fact that a particular person in a pornographic video is underage is up to the government to proof if they want to convict you, say, of a child pornography charge. It does not matter where the material was produced, or what kind of records they kept. Now, the government may create laws that oblige a distributor of pornography to be in possession of such records, and someone how is not may be in violation of those laws. It also doesn't matter if the material is advertised as "teen" or not. Similarly, you may argue that a site like Backpage should be legal, as long as they verify the age of the advertisers. It's a rather strange argument, after all, they can't verify that the person they verify is the person that turns up at the appointment. But that is not the law. The government is instead alleging that there is a law that makes Backpage-like advertising of prostitution illegal, regardless of whether the ages were verified or not.

tptacek 8y ago

Wait, can you tell me what indictment you were reading, which was pages and pages of the evils of prostitution and just a few bits about what the Backpage staff did, and where the only thing they're accused of doing to groom child trafficking ads is stripping the word "lolita"? I'm genuinely curious about what your sourcing is now.

stickfigure 8y ago
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-leads-effort-seize-backpagecom-internet-s-leading-forum-prostitution-ads https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-leads-effo... Please point out to me the #s that you find damning.
- tptacek 8y ago
  Did you read the indictment or the press release?
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Is one more relevant than the other?
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Obviously yes.
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    He's asking you for the #s, surely he's referring to the indictment with numbered chapters. Chapter #61 discusses this scheme. It's ridiculous to claim that any of the words used in the indictment strongly suggest child prostitution. >array of terms that are suggestive of child prostitution (e.g., "lolita," fresh," "high school," "tight," "young")
    - DanBC 8y ago
      We know Backpage did nothing about some underage ads because the girls who'd been trafficked tried to get those ads taken down and Backpage declined. > And in February 2010, a detective emailed Backpage to alert the company that a 17-year-old girl who tried to get Backpage to take down an advertisement of herself had been rebuffed: According to the detective, the girl “tried asking for [the ads] to be removed but was told they couldnt [sic] be until enough people reported her as potentially underage.”

DanBC 8y ago

> how many do you want to report? All of them?

ryanlol 8y ago
All of what though? It's not like backpage could possibly know who's underage and who isn't. Should every ad containing the word "tight" go to the NCMEC?
- DanBC 8y ago
  Please read the document. Backpage have already admitted a lot of this stuff was happening.
  - miracle2k 8y ago
    They certainly did not. Please provide the # of the indictment or a specific source.

DanBC 8y ago

> So let's throw out all the points in the indictment that aren't child-specific? Are you missing the bits where children who were advertised on Backpage contacted backpage to get these ads removed, and backpage refused to do so? We have testimony from children.