5 ms·

will this stop others from providing a forum for "erotic services" advertisements? no. but this will bring some sort of order to the current system on cl. and c

will this stop others from providing a forum for "erotic services" advertisements? no. but this will bring some sort of order to the current system on cl. and cl is the largest market place for this kind of stuff. at the risk of being flamed, i kind of liken this to whats going on between arrington and fb re. holocaust denial. if fb squashes holocaust denial on their platform, will it kill it everywhere, no (duh). but it would draw a line as to what is acceptable and what is not on their systems. neither cl nor fb are legally responsible for what people post on their sites. but cl made a decision to "do the right thing"(tm), im pretty sure fb will as well.

erlanger 17y ago
How is this an example of doing the right thing?
- pxlpshr 17y ago
  With great power (accessibility), comes great responsibility. The erotic service ads are visible by plain view and can be accessed by anyone by simply clicking through a link. Craigslist should do a much better job of protecting kids and naive teens, and with some level of verification to protect your general user too. Many of the erotic services are bots looking to harvest email address from unsuspecting users. However, I do think removing them entirely is a joke too. They certainly aren't protecting anyone in that regard.
- siculars 17y ago
  its the right thing on a number of levels. 1. it gets the attorneys general off your back. 2. it is good pr 3. it will reduce spam on that section of the site which will result in better ads for customers 4. it sets a standard that says "we wont allow a wild west freak show on our site" agree, dont agree, whatever... the freak show will continue in other parts of the interweb. just not on cl in the manner that it has in the past. and thats the win - because cl is the main hub for people looking for all kinds of stuff - freak show or otherwise. you cant really have your cake and eat it too.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    Your 3 is bizarre. It removes spam on a section of the site by removing the section. No customers are helped by this; it's straight cost-cutting (which is the other side of trying to be profitable, of course).
    - siculars 17y ago
      That section is being replaced by a moderated analogue
      - randallsquared 17y ago
        Maybe I should have read the article, eh? :)
rbanffy 17y ago
In FB's case, doing the right thing will only drive holocaust deniers further underground. Banishment is not the way people should debate ideas, however stupid they are. Specially when they are stupid ones.
- siculars 17y ago
  underground and marginalized is exactly where that conversation should be taking place. not on the open forums of one of the most trafficked web sites on the planet. it is one thing to have a conversation and/or debate as to the veracity of the holocaust. it is another to actually form groups as a hub specifically for the sole purpose of denying what is an immutable fact. in doing so, fb lends itself as an unwitting accomplice and creates an implied link between the two. how bad can holocaust denial be?sounds like they might have a point. you can join a group for it right on facebook!
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    What about when it's our unpopular idea, siculars? Ten to fifteen years ago, when it was common knowledge that hackers were just criminals that broke into computers and stole things, should we have had to have these conversations underground and marginalized? When you call for suppression, you're asserting that you expect to be on the winning side of every memetic battle, but the only way to assure that is to switch sides if you're losing.
    - siculars 17y ago
      The conflagration between hacker and cracker was and remains semantics. Sir, your argument is sound but your example is weak.
      - randallsquared 17y ago
        I knew it was weak, but it was the only point of reference I had that I knew we shared, without reading through your comment history. I think you mean "conflation", by the way.
marcusbooster 17y ago
Most places in the offline U.S. have laws prohibiting prostitution. Also all places in the offline U.S. have laws protecting the freedom of speech no matter how repulsive it may be. I don't think this has anything to do with "doing the right thing." I'm sure you could make a compelling argument that Craigslist is facilitating criminal enterprise, and it would be a strictly business decision for them if they wanted to fight those charges or find a (less costly) middle-ground.

erlanger 17y ago

How is this an example of doing the right thing?

pxlpshr 17y ago
With great power (accessibility), comes great responsibility. The erotic service ads are visible by plain view and can be accessed by anyone by simply clicking through a link. Craigslist should do a much better job of protecting kids and naive teens, and with some level of verification to protect your general user too. Many of the erotic services are bots looking to harvest email address from unsuspecting users. However, I do think removing them entirely is a joke too. They certainly aren't protecting anyone in that regard.
siculars 17y ago
its the right thing on a number of levels. 1. it gets the attorneys general off your back. 2. it is good pr 3. it will reduce spam on that section of the site which will result in better ads for customers 4. it sets a standard that says "we wont allow a wild west freak show on our site" agree, dont agree, whatever... the freak show will continue in other parts of the interweb. just not on cl in the manner that it has in the past. and thats the win - because cl is the main hub for people looking for all kinds of stuff - freak show or otherwise. you cant really have your cake and eat it too.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  Your 3 is bizarre. It removes spam on a section of the site by removing the section. No customers are helped by this; it's straight cost-cutting (which is the other side of trying to be profitable, of course).
  - siculars 17y ago
    That section is being replaced by a moderated analogue
    - randallsquared 17y ago
      Maybe I should have read the article, eh? :)

rbanffy 17y ago

In FB's case, doing the right thing will only drive holocaust deniers further underground. Banishment is not the way people should debate ideas, however stupid they are. Specially when they are stupid ones.

siculars 17y ago
underground and marginalized is exactly where that conversation should be taking place. not on the open forums of one of the most trafficked web sites on the planet. it is one thing to have a conversation and/or debate as to the veracity of the holocaust. it is another to actually form groups as a hub specifically for the sole purpose of denying what is an immutable fact. in doing so, fb lends itself as an unwitting accomplice and creates an implied link between the two. how bad can holocaust denial be?sounds like they might have a point. you can join a group for it right on facebook!
- randallsquared 17y ago
  What about when it's our unpopular idea, siculars? Ten to fifteen years ago, when it was common knowledge that hackers were just criminals that broke into computers and stole things, should we have had to have these conversations underground and marginalized? When you call for suppression, you're asserting that you expect to be on the winning side of every memetic battle, but the only way to assure that is to switch sides if you're losing.
  - siculars 17y ago
    The conflagration between hacker and cracker was and remains semantics. Sir, your argument is sound but your example is weak.
    - randallsquared 17y ago
      I knew it was weak, but it was the only point of reference I had that I knew we shared, without reading through your comment history. I think you mean "conflation", by the way.

marcusbooster 17y ago

Most places in the offline U.S. have laws prohibiting prostitution. Also all places in the offline U.S. have laws protecting the freedom of speech no matter how repulsive it may be. I don't think this has anything to do with "doing the right thing." I'm sure you could make a compelling argument that Craigslist is facilitating criminal enterprise, and it would be a strictly business decision for them if they wanted to fight those charges or find a (less costly) middle-ground.