3 ms·

Can you just read the article? Almost all your questions are answered or linked to in the article.

belorn 8y ago
Actually missed that they did say a date, which is... After the police seized Backpage in April 2018. "The company is helping to sponsor an anti-human-trafficking event in April" It also said its nonprofit arm spotlighted groups that worked on the front lines of the issue in 2017, which could be said to be PR campaign but it is stretching the meaning of a PR campaign a bit. "The lawsuit includes an order form billed to Backpage that’s dated in December 2016." Which dates before the campaign done after April 2018, and after the nonprofit arm spotlighted groups in 2017. So the dates did matter as I suspected. Saleforce did not first do a PR campaign and then elected to do business with backpage (as will_brown said above). They first elected to do business with backpage, had a nonprofit arm spotlighted groups a year later and then did the PR campaign after the police seized Backpage. That implies strongly that the PR campaign was a reaction to the police seizure.
- will_brown 8y ago
  I don’t think I said salesforce did the PR campaign before their business dealings. It’s also not a legal requirement of the claims (it’s just facts that play well to a jury). The threshold legal issue is did salesforce know or should SF have known their goods/products were being used by backpage to facilitate human trafficking/prostitution.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - belorn 8y ago
    Party A had done X and Y when it elected to do Z. I kind of read that as X and Y occurring before Z. As for the subject matter if saleforce knew in 2016 what the FBI acted on in 2018, I don't know. It leaves me with several large questions, the biggest being about why the site lasted for as long as it did. The FBI received continuously information about child sex trafficking and prostitution, and had several court cases dating back to at least 2010. From a moral perspective its an valid discussion to ask if saleforce should consider their ethical consideration of how their customers utilize their goods and products, but from a legal perspective I kind of look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpage#Legal_decisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpage#Legal_decisions and see a complete failure from the legal system to tell the world if the behavior of backpage was illegal. It would not surprise me if saleforced did ask their lawyers and got a OK back.
mindcrime 8y ago
Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Actually missed that they did say a date, which is... After the police seized Backpage in April 2018. "The company is helping to sponsor an anti-human-trafficking event in April" It also said its nonprofit arm spotlighted groups that worked on the front lines of the issue in 2017, which could be said to be PR campaign but it is stretching the meaning of a PR campaign a bit. "The lawsuit includes an order form billed to Backpage that’s dated in December 2016." Which dates before the campaign done after April 2018, and after the nonprofit arm spotlighted groups in 2017. So the dates did matter as I suspected. Saleforce did not first do a PR campaign and then elected to do business with backpage (as will_brown said above). They first elected to do business with backpage, had a nonprofit arm spotlighted groups a year later and then did the PR campaign after the police seized Backpage. That implies strongly that the PR campaign was a reaction to the police seizure.

will_brown 8y ago
I don’t think I said salesforce did the PR campaign before their business dealings. It’s also not a legal requirement of the claims (it’s just facts that play well to a jury). The threshold legal issue is did salesforce know or should SF have known their goods/products were being used by backpage to facilitate human trafficking/prostitution.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- belorn 8y ago
  Party A had done X and Y when it elected to do Z. I kind of read that as X and Y occurring before Z. As for the subject matter if saleforce knew in 2016 what the FBI acted on in 2018, I don't know. It leaves me with several large questions, the biggest being about why the site lasted for as long as it did. The FBI received continuously information about child sex trafficking and prostitution, and had several court cases dating back to at least 2010. From a moral perspective its an valid discussion to ask if saleforce should consider their ethical consideration of how their customers utilize their goods and products, but from a legal perspective I kind of look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpage#Legal_decisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpage#Legal_decisions and see a complete failure from the legal system to tell the world if the behavior of backpage was illegal. It would not surprise me if saleforced did ask their lawyers and got a OK back.

mindcrime 8y ago

Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html