On: Backpage.com seized by U.S. justice authorities

[drawkbox]

Take a look at the comment thread this started, it was about porn.

Equating porn with sex trafficking is a KNOWN tactic of people / orgs against porn to say it contributes to 'sex trafficking'. Groups like this say it all the time [1][2]. There are also large religious/authoritative groups behind the push and funding. Really it is about gaining more control over you to limit your freedoms.

> Pornography is in and of itself a form of sex trafficking [1].

> They teach that there is no acceptable amount of porn to watch; anyone who consumes porn is considered an addict. Utah’s new anti-porn resolution contains language that echoes the Mormon church’s doomsday predictions: “Pornography equates violence towards women and children with sex and pain with pleasure, which increases the demand for sex trafficking, prostitution, child sexual abuse images, and child pornography,” the resolution reads. “Pornography use is linked to lessening desire in young men to marry, dissatisfaction in marriage, and infidelity.” [2]

The only strawman are those setups. Groups are pushing these types of laws all over the country in especially authoritarian states/orgs.

It freaks me out some are moving back to a crazy conservative view of sex/humans almost scarlet letter-esque, shaming, culty, very controlling and authoritarian view over your own body and mind.

[1] http://humantraffickingsearch.org/the-connection-between-sex...

[2] http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/04/20/utah_declare...

[DanBC → drawkbox]

But Backpage isn't being taken down because of porn. Backpage is being taken down because it knowingly facilitated in the trafficing of children for sex.

[Sacho → DanBC]

Your comments are misleading. What you call "knowingly facilitated" is described in the report as not being zealous enough in removing anything that may or may not be child sex related.

Here is an example of the deceitful language and assertions that you are championing:

"Internal correspondence also suggests Backpage believes it is better that child sex trafficking take place on its website than elsewhere. In 2011, in response to a request from the Seattle Police Chief to require photo ID whenever a user submits a photo for an ad, Padilla expressed doubt to Ferrer and Hyer that such a system would be useful—it might create a “false sense of security.” But he went on to add the following:

And even if an age verification was a deterrent to someone hoping to post an ad on Backpage to traffic a minor, it doesn’t mean they’re going to stop trying to traffic a minor. It only means they won’t be doing it on our site, where Backpage, NCMEC and law enforcement are in the best position to put an actual stop to the crime."

And another:

"The record also contains substantial evidence that, as a matter of policy, Backpage often chose to err against reporting potential child exploitation. As the Subcommittee reported in connection with its November 2015 hearing, in June 2012 Backpage instructed its outsourced third-party moderators only to delete suspected child-sex advertisements “IF YOU REALLY VERY SURE THE PERSON IS UNDERAGE.” In a similar email, a Backpage supervisor instructed internal moderation staff: “Young ads do not get deleted unless they are clearly a child.”"

The whole report about "knowingly facilitating" sex trafficking is about them acknowledging the possibility that some people may be using the site for sex trafficking(which is just reality), and then questioning the demands of activists to ban a broad spectrum of ads because they may be related to child sex trafficking.

Backpage was, quite clearly, trying to maintain its business of prostitution ads. Trying to somehow link them to "child sex trafficking" is disingenuous.