> Yes, and 95% percent of them are intended to proof that BackPage knowingly facilitated prostitution. Which, incidentally, wasn't a crime until March 2018, w

> Yes, and 95% percent of them are intended to proof that BackPage knowingly facilitated prostitution. Which, incidentally, wasn't a crime until March 2018, when Congress passed a law that not only made it a crime, but retroactively criminalized it for Backpage. This is absurdly unconstitutional, of course[0], and the bill's author (Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut) should know that, since he was the Attorney General for Connecticut before. Of course, Blumenthal does know this, because he's been waging a personal war against prostitution for the past decade. He's the reason that Craigslist shut down the "erotic services" section about ten years ago, which meant that sex workers had to start posting in the personals section. (Of course, this gave them cause to write FOSTA/SESTA, at which point Craigslist had to shut down the entire personals section as well.) [0] https://medium.com/@TechFreedom/yes-sesta-is-probably-unconstitutional-after-all-d9f58ffb0927 https://medium.com/@TechFreedom/yes-sesta-is-probably-uncons...