3 ms·

They were reporting to NCMEC. For all we know, the phrase "15 year old lolita" caused them to report something. Beyond that, they had a bad word filter to help

They were reporting to NCMEC. For all we know, the phrase "15 year old lolita" caused them to report something. Beyond that, they had a bad word filter to help moderate the site. To make themselves look better, yes. They didn't want a bunch of ads on there using the word "lolita". They could have blocked ads with that word, thus guiding "traffickers" in how to write ads. They chose apparently to delete these words. Both of them would have been used against them. In either case, they must have had tens of thousands of ads matching, with the actual underage persons involved being in all likelyhood a small minority.

tptacek 8y ago
They were reporting a fixed number of things to NCMEC every day and every month. They capped the number of things they'd report to NCMEC. The indictment specifically charges them with getting ad submissions clearly pertaining to child sex trafficking and not reporting to them to law enforcement. When they met with NCMEC, NCMEC told them (paraphrasing) "you're breaking the law and will eventually get prosecuted for this". NCMEC and Backpage were not allies.
- miracle2k 8y ago
  You are clearly reading the indictment in the way you choose to. Let's have a look. #51: NCMEC claims in front of Backpage that "many" of the ads feature children, and either this, or posting prostitution ads in general, is illegal. Ok. Nothing here about Backpage not deleting ads involving underage people. #54: Backpage asked NCMEC what kind of prostitution ads would be acceptable. NCMEC declines the answer. Backpage says "Adult prostitution is none of your business". The indictment mentions this proudly - because why? Because the indictment is 100% presupposed on the idea that Backpage advertising adult prostitution is a crime. #63: NCMEC tells them, quote "a large portion of the ads on Backpage were blatant prostitution ads". No mention of underage persons. #80. A mention of an email in which a limit on the reports to NCMEC is suggested. No details as to why, if maybe NCMEC asked for less reports, or if any such limit was ever implemented. #96. NCMEC sends a letter, suggesting: verify the age and identify of submitters, verify the age and identity of individuals in photographs, do not accept prepaid credit cards, require users to use verified email addresses and phone numbers (not sure how). Backpage ignored those suggestions. Now, if you, like NCMEC, believe that sex trafficking is a huge issue in the US, then you may find those suggestions to be sensible. If you, like me, believe in policies that protect marginalized people who engage in sex work, you might find them to only intended to create barriers for people who do not need this kind of help. In either case, this does not mean that Backpage condoned or otherwise supported sex traffickers. That is all the mentions of NCMEC in the indictment as far as I can see.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    Isn’t there a bit more than that? For reference: https://www.justice.gov/file/1050276/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1050276/download #12 Alleges the age scrubbing behavior tptacek has mentioned. #13 Discusses their lack of interest in a warning message and cites an email discussing limiting their reporting of incidents because they didn’t want to exceed 500 reports a month to the NCMEC. Far from your claim that the motivation is unclear, it is in fact explicit. #51 Is actually the second warning Backpage received about the underage issue, the first being a letter from the AG’s as outlined in #39 #61 Is a list of newly banned terms including, “Lolita, fresh, high school, tight and young.” #67 Adds “amber alert” to the “strip out list” tptacek has mentioned, guided the moderation’s “cleaning” of ads pimping children; ads which were not removed. #69 Discuss their rejection of using age-verification software because of the ~$.60 cost per query. #72 Refers to a letter from Seattle PD warning about the prevalence of underage prostitution ads on their site. #74 A letter from state AG’s alleging multiple counts of human trafficking through their site. #75 Rejection of an attempt to handle the “underage issue” because it would not provide a PR benefit. #76 A presentation by their own PR firm warning that of the three major categories of ads on their site, one was “Pimps and Men Looking For Kids.” #77 Email about underage issue, includes joke that site should be called “entrapment.com” #78 Padilla admits to editing 76 pages of ads with the word “teen” in them, not removing said ads. #79 Alleges thst during performance reviews many mods who ignored underage escorts kept their jobs. #80 Actually states the reason, “If we don’t want to blow past 500 this month, we shouldn’t be doing more than 16 per day.” #83 Keeping a 17 year old’s ad up despite her attempt to recruit a 15 year old because the 15 year old wasn’t actually in the ad. #86, and #87, and #88 A mother explains that her drugged, kidnapped daughter is appearing in ads on the site, cites a phone number, and asks for ads to be removed. Response is that since the site in question (Backpagepics.com) isn’t owned by their corporate entity they don’t need to bother. #93 AZU study showing issue with underage prostitution is shown to BP along with recommendations which are ignored. #94 Coaching someone posting underage prostitutes on how to clean up the ads while keeping them up. You didn’t even do a good job of cherry picking, and why bother with that unconvincing attempt at deception when we’re discussing a document we’re all reading?! A document which is quite damning and conforms to tptacek’s version of events rather than your own skewed version. And you still had the gall to open with You are clearly reading the indictment in the way you choose to. Let's have a look. Look in the mirror.

tptacek 8y ago

They were reporting a fixed number of things to NCMEC every day and every month. They capped the number of things they'd report to NCMEC. The indictment specifically charges them with getting ad submissions clearly pertaining to child sex trafficking and not reporting to them to law enforcement. When they met with NCMEC, NCMEC told them (paraphrasing) "you're breaking the law and will eventually get prosecuted for this". NCMEC and Backpage were not allies.

miracle2k 8y ago
You are clearly reading the indictment in the way you choose to. Let's have a look. #51: NCMEC claims in front of Backpage that "many" of the ads feature children, and either this, or posting prostitution ads in general, is illegal. Ok. Nothing here about Backpage not deleting ads involving underage people. #54: Backpage asked NCMEC what kind of prostitution ads would be acceptable. NCMEC declines the answer. Backpage says "Adult prostitution is none of your business". The indictment mentions this proudly - because why? Because the indictment is 100% presupposed on the idea that Backpage advertising adult prostitution is a crime. #63: NCMEC tells them, quote "a large portion of the ads on Backpage were blatant prostitution ads". No mention of underage persons. #80. A mention of an email in which a limit on the reports to NCMEC is suggested. No details as to why, if maybe NCMEC asked for less reports, or if any such limit was ever implemented. #96. NCMEC sends a letter, suggesting: verify the age and identify of submitters, verify the age and identity of individuals in photographs, do not accept prepaid credit cards, require users to use verified email addresses and phone numbers (not sure how). Backpage ignored those suggestions. Now, if you, like NCMEC, believe that sex trafficking is a huge issue in the US, then you may find those suggestions to be sensible. If you, like me, believe in policies that protect marginalized people who engage in sex work, you might find them to only intended to create barriers for people who do not need this kind of help. In either case, this does not mean that Backpage condoned or otherwise supported sex traffickers. That is all the mentions of NCMEC in the indictment as far as I can see.
- GW150914 8y ago
  Isn’t there a bit more than that? For reference: https://www.justice.gov/file/1050276/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1050276/download #12 Alleges the age scrubbing behavior tptacek has mentioned. #13 Discusses their lack of interest in a warning message and cites an email discussing limiting their reporting of incidents because they didn’t want to exceed 500 reports a month to the NCMEC. Far from your claim that the motivation is unclear, it is in fact explicit. #51 Is actually the second warning Backpage received about the underage issue, the first being a letter from the AG’s as outlined in #39 #61 Is a list of newly banned terms including, “Lolita, fresh, high school, tight and young.” #67 Adds “amber alert” to the “strip out list” tptacek has mentioned, guided the moderation’s “cleaning” of ads pimping children; ads which were not removed. #69 Discuss their rejection of using age-verification software because of the ~$.60 cost per query. #72 Refers to a letter from Seattle PD warning about the prevalence of underage prostitution ads on their site. #74 A letter from state AG’s alleging multiple counts of human trafficking through their site. #75 Rejection of an attempt to handle the “underage issue” because it would not provide a PR benefit. #76 A presentation by their own PR firm warning that of the three major categories of ads on their site, one was “Pimps and Men Looking For Kids.” #77 Email about underage issue, includes joke that site should be called “entrapment.com” #78 Padilla admits to editing 76 pages of ads with the word “teen” in them, not removing said ads. #79 Alleges thst during performance reviews many mods who ignored underage escorts kept their jobs. #80 Actually states the reason, “If we don’t want to blow past 500 this month, we shouldn’t be doing more than 16 per day.” #83 Keeping a 17 year old’s ad up despite her attempt to recruit a 15 year old because the 15 year old wasn’t actually in the ad. #86, and #87, and #88 A mother explains that her drugged, kidnapped daughter is appearing in ads on the site, cites a phone number, and asks for ads to be removed. Response is that since the site in question (Backpagepics.com) isn’t owned by their corporate entity they don’t need to bother. #93 AZU study showing issue with underage prostitution is shown to BP along with recommendations which are ignored. #94 Coaching someone posting underage prostitutes on how to clean up the ads while keeping them up. You didn’t even do a good job of cherry picking, and why bother with that unconvincing attempt at deception when we’re discussing a document we’re all reading?! A document which is quite damning and conforms to tptacek’s version of events rather than your own skewed version. And you still had the gall to open with You are clearly reading the indictment in the way you choose to. Let's have a look. Look in the mirror.