"Seven top officials of the website Backpage.com, long accused of facilitating child sex trafficking, have been arrested after a grand jury in Phoenix issued a 93-count indictment alleging conspiracy, facilitating prostitution and money laundering."

I've been following this fight against Backpage.com for years now as a technical consultant to "workers" that used the service for their trade, to which I had zero problems with these adults practicing. The whole time the news articles have slipped in "child sex" and "human trafficking" without an ounce of evidence. Those buzzwords have just set the frame to generate support for the prosecution of Backpage.com for the cited charges which, unsurprisingly to me, do NOT include the actual buzzwords.

It's a Puritanical witch hunt against adults engaging in adult services.

“Without an ounce of evidence”

Are you implying the media, law enforcement, and the judiciary are all involved in a conspiracy to take down completely innocent sex workers? (Which you admit are breaking the law similar to your OUTRAGE against the treatment of illegal immigrants)

That nowhere, 100%, ANY sex trafficking or child sex trafficking is happening because... well... you’re a technical consultant?

You never saw it so it must not be happening?

No, what I'm saying is that with these formal charges being filed... not one involves the buzzwords used in the media over the last several years and that doesn't surprise me one bit.

It may be against the law to do all the things they are charged with... but if they were actually trafficking or facilitating child sex... you can best believe that would be one of the charges. And they are not.

Rather than risk it becoming a conversation on sex work in America and to what extent technology is culpable they poisoned the water to make Backpage.com completely unsympathetic and irredeemable.

So the media says one thing (buzzwords) and the formal charges created by the AUSA (not the media) does not include them, just the facts of the case. Scandal! Alarm! They are conspiring to avoid a conversation on sex work!

Make it legal, or else like immigrants, we’re required to punish them the same way everything that’s illegal is punished.

Wait wait wait... are you asking for leniency based on... circumstances? Are you questioning the basis on which these individuals came to their lifestyles and saying that perhaps... PERHAPS... what they were doing was not “illegal”, but doing what they needed to do to survive?

Backpage/Cracker/Postfastr have hosted my business ads for years, allowing links direct to my website with relevant anchor text, I believe boosting my business website's Google ranking. Over 200 original ads, regularly updated and years old, now gone. Those ads were automatically copied-posted on multiple other sites, some parent company and others stolen, to flood thousands of indexed ad pages and all keeping those precious hotlinks. Now to see over the upcoming months how far my site drops in search results as Google gradually marks as broken all those ad webpages.

Anyone here know a good replacement? I've still got justlanded.com and fast-alles.net which are meh okay. Google/Bing keep asking me to pay for ads, which is my tax-deductable fallback should my site take a big hit.

I don't know why you'd run something like this within reach of America™.

Money.

That, and you get away with it for so long eventually you don't believe anyone is going to do anything about it. Surprise!

There's plenty of ways to accept money from Americans without getting entangled in their mess.

You're probably right about the latter bit though.

Why run something within reach of the US? Because running the website was legal until the end of March. I commented about it here when Youtube/Reddit changed their policies. tl;dr until March section 230 protected operators of the website, when Congress stripped those protections in some cases. I'm sure there won't be any unintended consequences.

And something to add to your points is that the changes in 230 are retroactive. In effect undeletable Internet archives can be dug up to bring charges against these technology companies at any point in the future. That is unconstitutional but they are evil people so we're not supposed to care. It's no wonder that they choose the timing for the charges.

They are not pulling the rug from underneath these people. What they were doing was illegal before, illegal now, and they’re simply pointing out “hey, we’re actually moving on this now.”

Did we give you a false sense of hope by using your services and only afterwards asking you leave the country or be deported? Oh I’m sorry, I meant using your norok-approved (but illegal) services and only afterwards asking you to be arrested or prosecuted?

This actually now forces cops to do actual work rather than do sting operations.

This changes nothing. It's just pushing the industry back further underground. They'll be more decentralized than before.

I'm sure another site will pop up, out of their reach, and with no reason to help them.

Any site that offers physical services within the United States, by its very nature, is ‘within reach’.

Well, keep the servers out of the United States. You can play funny business with some transaction systems, but there's plenty of ways around that these days.

The US has MOU's with most of the countries where you can/would keep your servers. Break any laws, play 'funny' business, and those countries will happily seize the servers for us (for a generous 50% equitable sharing deal).

The easier method would be to sign up for your 'service' as a civilian and flip the employee that eventually shows up for the transaction. "If you tell us how you're getting paid its just probation, if you give us the names of the people running this operation we'll let you go entirely, if you don't know their names but are willing to stay on as an informant and find out, we'll give you 10% of whatever we seize."

We depend on that confidence to 'get around' the rules of our financial transaction systems. Keeps us employed. The more successful you are before we catch you, the higher value of that frozen bank account.

"The higher you rise the further you fall. And no matter how much you try to convince yourself that brief moment you flew was worth it, the only thing more painful than hitting rock bottom is knowing you were wrong."

Well, TPB has been going for 14 years well out of reach of the US.

Any site that offers physical services within the United States, by its very nature, is ‘within reach’.

Physical services versus digital material. Apples and oranges.

And even so...



We do international task forces every few years, take down the biggest fish, and then several new fish take their place. They’re in different countries and we still get them.

To a degree, TPB and other ‘nefarious’ services (dark web, etc) are allowed to exist because it gives a portal to actually dangerous people. No one gives a shit if you download the latest copyrighted video game over here, it’s the idiot over here using these services to trade child porn that we’re interested in stopping.

Could we stop them all? No probably not, we are hemmoraging manpower over here, lolz.

But let’s say we could. Two things would happen.

1) New places would pop up and take their place.

2) They would innovate. Possibly creating new and terrible services LE are not aware of, or haven’t learned how to backdoor into.

So let them exist. Heck, allow some trading of copyrighted data. Those aren’t the dangerous game we’re hunting. They think this watering hole is safe? Good... little closer...

You understand Backpage didn't offer any prostitutes, right? It was just a classified ad service, literally like the back page of community newspapers.

So yes, new services will just pop up to take its place that won't have any reason to cooperate with the US on trafficking. Good job.

Holy shit, there weren’t ANY prostitutes using backpage?

All those interviews with prostitutes that admitted to using backpage were... g-g-g-hosts?! /s

Come on man. I’m with you that the sex worker industry in this country needs to be reformed, but let’s call a fish a fish. While there are several reasons multiple federal agencies decided to bring Backpage down, we can both agree that this doesn’t fix the problem.

Push to legalize it and create a system of rules. Until it is, expect the rest of us to do our job.

So should Durex be liable if prostitutes use their product?

Backpage was happy to help stop trafficking. The next one (or five) probably won't.

So should Durex be liable if prostitutes use their product?

Liable for what? Preventing pregnancy and disease transmission?

Um... YES! I hold them liable.. for doing the thing... that their thing does (the disease/pregnancy stopping, not the prostitution)... that isn't illegal or hurting anyone...

Backpage was happy to help stop trafficking.

They were until they weren't.

The next one (or five) probably won't.

You think we're going to let the next one (or five) get as big without being thoroughly embedded? Fool us once...

By all means, don't be compliant to stop child trafficking when approached by law enforcement. Some of our investigations, statistically speaking, need to be the 'easy ones'.

Classified ads aren't illegal, either.

The next one won't be within your reach.

On my word, it was not legal classifieds that brought down backpage.

The next one won't be within your reach.

Game on. ;-)

You realize that attitude is why people don't like Americans, and why things are going to get pretty bad for you as your collapse progresses.

There are many reasons to dislike Americans. We have a tendency to be self centered about our country and not grasp the big picture that we’re all on this planet together.

However, this attitude’o’mine should not paint your view of Americans. I would argue 90% of the people here are on your side of the fence (I may be projecting here).

I respect your difference of opinion and will discuss it with you until you run out of patience.

I am being cocky (an American quality) because I have pocket aces on this subject. Backpage had an underbelly and you will see the details of it come out in time.

I like to think of our collapse as a readjustment, similar to a crash in the stock market. It will be here tomorrow and I hope a lesson is learned by all of us. Probably not, but here’s to doing my part.

don't understand why prostitution is illegal. Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? You know, why should it be illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away? I can't follow the logic on that one at all! Of all the things you can do, giving someone an orgasm is hardly the worst thing in the world. In the army they give you a medal for spraying napalm on people! In civilian life you go to jail for giving someone an orgasm! Maybe I'm not supposed to understand it... - The late great george carlin

It gets really murky when porn is legal.

It’s illegal to have sex with money exchanged unless there’s a camera.

Porn is legal because both people get paid. When only one person gets paid, it's prostitution.

Actual (real) glory hole videos with hidden cameras are being sold on manyvids. The various dicks joining in never got paid.

If your “intent” is to produce a video, movie or photo, it’s protected.

My comment was a skit by carlin. It definitely holds water as most of carlins stuff does, logically.

I don't think that filming it is going to save your ass if caught in the act and i'm sure that laws very state by state, county by county.

It’s legal because it’s an industry that can be regulated. Safety can be enforced, money exchanging hands can be monitored, and the idea is to avoid it devolving into rape/abuse of an exploitable gender.

It’s something you have to enter, and by that obstacle of entry you can prevent the public from spiraling into the unintended consequences that could be produced.

Full disclosure I’m not against it; but I think a long and detailed conversation, rules, and system would need to be in place before flipping that switch. Once it’s flipped, you aren’t going back. Just my opinion.

Prostitution is an industry that can be regulated, et cetera. It is all over the place.

And wtf is an "exploitable gender?"

It can be regulated. I agree.

What I was cautioning against is taking Carlin's joke without a grain of salt.

I do not believe people have thought of the ramifications of making it legal for 'Sam' to pay 'Jenny' $300 for a quick romp in the hay the same way he might purchase something at a yard sale.

Example:
Sam outright rapes Jenny. After the attack, he skips down to the local bank where Jenny has an account. Sam deposits $300 into Jenny's account. When the police come for Sam, he explains that they had an oral agreement for sex. "Jenny changed the price after I finished and said she'd cry rape!", I paid her legally and here is my attorney Mr. Cohen if you have any other questions. "You can't rape wives or prostitutes that you have legally paid for sex, but I repeat myself."

If Jenny has EVER engaged in this transaction prior (and it's legal now so who hasn't?) Sam is gonna paint her with a brush in court.

This currently happens with prostitutes today. What happens when it's a legal transaction for everyone to do? Again, these are just concerns I have.

An exploitable gender is a gender that is historically exploited when it comes to a specific trade, especially illegal trade.

When you're selling illegal booze during prohibition, gender doesn't play too much of a role.

When you're dealing with illegal prostitution, SURPRISINGLY, the female gender is exploited, threatened, and overall more unsafe on average than the typical men who generally manage operations. That is not to say women are always exploited, but that it is not how it has played out historically speaking.

You could make it legal tomorrow, but without a system in place to monitor and enforce fairness, protection, and rules I feel that we will have created a problem for which there is no immediate/obvious solution. (I don't find our current situation that appealing either, but it's what we got)

That's a rather absurd scenario that doesn't play out where prostitution is legal.

And you know it is illegal to rape your wife, right?

Not as absurd as you might think. We have several situations where pimps slept with their sex workers consensually, for payment, and for trade. So over the course of several years you now have a sex worker saying this time was consensual, this time he paid money, this time he didn’t pay enough (theft and rape?), this time she didn’t want to at all (rape), and sex for room and board (but she was pressured so... rape?). Guess what the pimp is saying?

Now apply this situation to everyone that would ever sell sex in college, at a regular job, etc.

Can you sell sex at work? Can you sell sex to your boss? Can you sell sex to your subordinates? If there are disputes (and there WILL BE disputes) who resolves them? Our court system that has absolutely nothing to do all day?

And you know it is illegal to rape your wife, right?

WTF?! When did they change that!!! I just... argh! No... Look, we had a deal, I get to have sex with her whenever I want forever and in return she gets to dance in a pretty dress in front of our families this one time. /s

Yes, I know it’s illegal to rape your wife. I was making a joke about how Cohen said that you can’t rape your spouse when Trump’s wife accused him of it.

Do you really imagine that every woman in Nevada is a prostitute?

When did I say every woman in Nevada is a prostitute?

No, I don’t believe every woman in Nevada is a prostitute.

Do you believe, of the female sex workers interviewed by law enforcement leading up to this case, that the percentage of women who said they WANTED to do this type of work versus felt financially pressured, pimped, or that they couldn’t do anything else was above or below 50%?

Get your answer and then open below.

I believe every woman in Nevada is a prostitute.

Potential prostitute. Every woman in Nevada is a potential prostitute. Same goes for every man in Nevada.

And pet.

Who doesn't feel financially pressured to go to work? Isn't that kind of the point?

And you've repeatedly claimed that legalized prostitution makes all women whores. It's absurd.

Well that’s true, even I feel financial pressure to go to work. The difference is that I can choose another profession if I want to. Counsel will probably still hit me, but they’ll spare my pretty face. /s

Some of these workers can’t leave. Some are purposefully addicted to illegal drugs that only their pimp will provide. This makes even a minimum wage regular job non-accessible as they suffer withdrawal. They can be threatened if not physically beaten for even looking to exit the trade. I am under no illusion that some of the workers our organization interviewed for this case paid a price for doing so.

And you've repeatedly claimed that legalized prostitution makes all women whores. It's absurd.

I swear I didn’t, but if so, please point out the exact sentence. I’m simply saying that the lives of sex workers are not as glamourous as they seem and I’m pretty sure those lives are illustrated to look like shit to begin with.

In my humble opinion, if you make trading sex for money legal, all that violence, and blood, and money, and corruption, and rape, and pimping, and pressure, ad nauseum will be unleashed on the general public. I don’t think the general public is ready.

Will EVERYONE start trading sex for money? NO! Just like if you legalize cocaine, or heroin, or ecstasy EVERYONE wouldn't start using/buying those. Would people get hurt? Yes, I believe they would.

And maybe I’m making a big leap here, but I’m guessing you’re not of the gender that is going to get figuratively and literally fucked in this exchange. Historically, women lose. From what I can see, today, those that are in this trade are still losing.

"If Jenny has EVER engaged in this transaction prior (and it's legal now so who hasn't?) Sam is gonna paint her with a brush in court."

In my humble opinion, if you make trading sex for money legal, all that violence, and blood, and money, and corruption, and rape, and pimping, and pressure, ad nauseum will be unleashed on the general public. I don’t think the general public is ready.

Except that's failed to happen where it's legal. You have absolutely no reason to believe it would save some weird prudish prejudice.

Where it’s legal? Are we talking about the same country?

There are literally less than 50 locations where you can legally be a prostitute in America. Even if they had 50 employees each that is 2500 possible prostitutes to protect and regulate. Now, you and others implied making it legal a-la George Carlin. That would increase the ‘potential’ legal prostitutes (all who would need protection and regulation) to approximately 326 million minus children under age... except we know that’s bullshit because people are selling children TODAY, why would they stop just because adults could now do it legally?

I do not believe all 326 million US residents (minus children) will participate in selling sex for money. I believe more will (millions, across the country) than law enforcement can handle. Overflow of that lack of enforcement will become criminal activity, criminal enterprise, and eventually organized crime.

From what we can see NOW in how that illegal black market works, women get WRECKED. Violence, control, and money is all I see anywhere LE does not have a presence.

Is it doom and gloom everywhere? NO! However “I” am not willing to sacrifice even 1% of the population just so the other 99% can do something they are already allowed to do (just not anonymously and not for money).

That’s it, I think that’s the only thing we disagree on this subject.

You (and others here) believe Backpage was worth taking the good with the bad. As someone that got an in-depth look as to what was going on behind the scenes, I believe you are mistaken about the cost being worth it.

The world is a lot bigger than America, and taking down backpage doesn't stop anything.

We agree, the world is bigger than America.

The investigation found BackPage knowingly aided sex trafficking of women and girls. Last week, the Justice Department announced seven people were indicted on 93 counts related to facilitating prostitution and money laundering. The indictment highlighted several incidents of knowingly advertising minors on the site.

Can we agree that we’re allowed to stop money laundering and advertising minors on the site?

You understand that there's no one reviewing classified ads, right? There's not some dude in a bow tie next to a telegraph arranging movable type. Someone enters an ad into a form and it gets put up without any human intervention.

If you wanted to stop advertising for minors, you just did the worst thing possible in driving classifieds outside of your jurisdiction. Backpage could have been negotiated with. idowhatifuckingwant.cc can't.

Backpage, in addition to hosting thinly veiled ads for prostitution since 2004, was found hosting child sex trafficking ads on its site and even assisting advertisers in wording their copy so they didn’t overtly declare that sex was for sale. Carl Ferrer, CEO of Backpage, wrote that “I actively conspired with other Backpage principals … to find ways to knowingly facilitate the state-law prostitution crimes being committed by Backpage’s customers.”

Ferrer also acknowledged creating a “moderation” process to remove terms and pictures indicative of prostitution. “Such editing did not,” Ferrer wrote, “of course, change the essential nature of the illegal services being offered in the ads — it was merely intended to create a veneer of deniability for Backpage.” He said that these “editing practices were only one component of an overall, companywide culture and policy of concealing and refusing to officially acknowledge the true nature of the services being offered in Backpage’s ‘escort’ and ‘adult’ ads.”

However, in a stunning reversal, federal authorities were required to release Ferrer and the other principles of Backpage due to an obscure, often overlooked statute known as Foobar’s law. At the time of Ferrer’s arrest he was not found clad in the mandatory bow tie required by law, nor was he in the possession of movable type while operating a telegraph. Analysts have found this a strange requirement of the statute, as the two objects have nothing to do with each other. Ferrer said he was pleased with the outcome and that to celebrate, maybe he would look into a totally-legal “classified” involving two 12-year old Guatemalan girls. Federal authorities, attorneys present, and Ferrer laughed.

You seem to be conflating "illegal" prostitution ads with child sex ads.

I'm sure the latter does pop up from time to time on sites like backpage. Far less often than you're going on about, but I'm sure it's happened.

But you realize there's no person reviewing or even looking at the ads before they're posted, right? You understand that all of it is automated and no one is clicking "allow" on a post with a child, right?

I'm sure the latter does pop up from time to time on sites like backpage. Far less often than you're going on about, but I'm sure it's happened.

Oh you’re sure it happened, but not enough to be concerned about? Source?

I find it terrifying how easily you hand wave away child sex trafficking.

Paraphrasing: “Acceptable losses. Yawn.”

But you realize there's no person reviewing or even looking at the ads before they're posted, right?

A criminal creates, reviews, and clicks post. It get’s posted. The CEO admits there was a moderation process after-the-fact that would remove pictures, wording, etc that gave away the game of illegal activity. He also admits all of this was for the veneer of plausible deniability: We Didn’t Know! (which you appear more than happy to toe the line for even after they’ve been caught). This is not the smoking gun you think it is. Arguing that the vehicle a criminal uses is ALSO used by... other... less-criminals (normally I’d say innocents but you’re not even arguing for innocents), does not make the vehicle unassailable by law enforcement.

They were laundering millions of dollars using the site. Pretty sure even you have to agree we have the right to shut it down for THAT alone.

If the Pirate Bay was shut down tomorrow I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t be crying “But the website didn’t KNOW illegal postings were on their site! They don’t review the postings precisely when they’re made, so ipso-facto no collusion! The free exchange of copywrighted works isn’t immoral and so therefore it’s not wrong to break the law!”

foobar said @ 12:59am on 17th Aug - mod / reply
How does an immoral thing become acceptable because you needed the rewards from it?

Bad things are rarely the fault of mustache twirling psychopaths. Mostly they're done by otherwise good and decent folks who just shrug their shoulders and go along with it.

Prostitution is immoral now?

That was a quote from you on another topic. I found it insightful in this light. :-)

Breaking a fairly enacted law is immoral, yes.

You and I already agreed that exchanging money for sex is not inherently immoral. Change the law and you’re good to go. Or visit Nevada.

Breaking the law is immoral? So sheltering Anne Frank was immoral? Those operating the underground railroad, moving slaves to freedom, were immoral? Smoking weed is immoral?

Come on.

Jaywalking is a sin!

Nah, I’m just giving you some meat so you know I’m a good sport. :-D

Backpage wasn’t shut down for moral reasons. In fact, it was allowed to exist because law enforcement has a tendency to avoid strictly moral issues as it relates to the law. Adultery is illegal in several states. Find me anyone being arrested for that.

Money laundering and child trafficking. You STILL haven’t admitted these were reason enough to shut down the page.

I haven't seen any evidence of either, and those are the sort of post-facto charges that get trumped up to try to justify what really just amounts to censorship.

Well it’s a good thing we don’t pay you to investigate these things then. You’d go blind on the first day closing your eyes that hard. :-)

You went from “I’m sure it happened, but not enough to be bothered about.” to ‘no’ evidence. Hunh.

Here is an article from Tiffany who has been trafficked on Backpage since she was 14.


Here is the plea agreement where Ferrer admits to money laundering. You can call it a trumped up charge but that implies it’s false. We didn’t plant money on him.

So now we’re engaging in censorship? Of what? Illegal speech? You aren’t allowed to, even in your iron-clad classifieds, solicit services that are illegal.

Backpage facilitated this, they admitted to facilitating this, they admitted to receiving and concealing money from facilitating this, and they admitted to it involving the trafficking of minors.

You're accusing backpage of child trafficking and then throwing up a red herring of someone else advertising child trafficking on backpage. I'm sure the latter has happened but if you want to prosecute them for that, you'll have to hit the ISP, computer manufacturer, et cetera, as well.

I'm not interested in looking at a plea deal. There are a lot of innocent people forced to plea.

There's nothing illegal about classified advertisements, nor does putting them on the internet suddenly make them illegal. These things have literally been running on the back page of community newspapers forever.

If you rob a bank, your getaway car is an illegal facilitation vehicle. You don’t have the right to use a car to escape custody after commiting a crime. When we catch you, you lose that car. It becomes property of the government. Doesn’t matter if you used it legally every other day, you use it for crime, poof. We don’t punish Ford just because that was your choice of vehicle make. We don’t go after tire manufacturers because the whole thing doesn’t work without them. It’s about degrees.

In Backpage’s case, you weren't even using it legally every other day. The prostitution via classifieds was ignored, overlooked, call it what you want. Then children came into play, then money came into play, then the actively hiding the child predators came into play, then the money laundering just started to make a mockery of the whole thing. Enough is enough.

The CEO earned 153 million LAST YEAR, if he was innocent, he could have afforded to fight it. If you cut a deal as a rich man, you know you done fucked up.

That is not how the word ‘literally’ works.

Getting away with an illegal action in the past is not a justification to allow illegal actions in the future. No one has said classifieds are illegal in and of themselves. When you trade money for sexual services, IN A CLASSIFIED, unfortunately, that is illegal. Try pulling that shit with children and we’ll take your ‘car’ away entirely.

Except you're ripping up the road, not the car. This is about them going after the infrastructure, not the people possibly committing crimes with it.

And yes, that is how the word literally works. Did you never see the back page of a community paper when they were still around?

Ok whatever metaphor you’d like to use. We’re ripping up the road to an extremely popular illegal online brothel. We were patient with the illegal activity because we couldn’t tell which sex workers chose this and which were trapped. Then it started involving children and large sums of money. That’s a red line for several agencies. So we pulled up the road and burned the house to the ground. We saved the children we could, but of course, there were other losses...



By all means pave a new road and build a new house. We’ll be watching this time.

These things have literally been running on the back page of community newspapers forever.

“Literally” combined with “forever” encompasses all community newspapers ever, including the first one. Confidentials for sexual services were probably not on the first community paper ever. They probably waited, at least, for the second print. :-P

There was no brothel. Backpage had no hoes. It was just a message board. Like this one.

You weren't trying to save any children. If you were, you could have pretended to be clients and looked into it. You didn't, because that's not what you actually care about.

Now there will be new places, but they'll be out of your reach.

And I doubt they waited for the second print. It's the oldest profession.

Backpage had no hoes. It was just a message board.

That’s just not the case. Saying it doesn’t make it so. Here is a message board discussing the purchase of a prostiute on Backpage.

You weren't trying to save any children. If you were, you could have pretended to be clients and looked into it. You didn't, because that's not what you actually care about.

We did do that. We caught people here, here, and here. Backpage began actively hiding their worst clients. We were not going to let them perfect their craft.

You can be angry at law enforcement for doing their job, but I feel it would be more appropriate to be angry at Backpage for ruining something you enjoyed (completely legal confidentials) by involving children and laundering money.

Do you really not get that they're talking about someone who posted on Backpage, not someone Backpage has anything to do with?

Why would a company that sells advertising "hide" ads? You're not stupid enough to seriously make that argument.

Backpage hasn't ruined anything, nor have you taken anything down. You've just moved it around, so that people selling kids can hide a little bit easier. And fucked up ComposerNate's site rankings, I guess.

If you actually cared about any of the harm that can happen around these sites, you'd just be on them, watching for things that sound like they might be advertising kids and making your own posts for "young" girls.

That's what our cops did, by the way, if you responded to an ad for a "nineteen" year old girl, you risk a date with Officer Mustache.

Thanks for fucking that up.

Do you really not get that they're talking about someone who posted on Backpage, not someone Backpage has anything to do with?

You’re responsible for what’s posted on your site, whether it’s terrorism, prostitution, or child porn. Ferrer confessed to actively assisting the prostitution. I know you don’t “believe” in confessions, but I don’t know what else to tell you.

Why would a company that sells advertising "hide" ads? You're not stupid enough to seriously make that argument.

I said clients. Ferrer and his partners actively assisted prostitution on the site. Sorry, should have mentioned they had to launder the money from those activities because they were not legal.

Backpage hasn't ruined anything, nor have you taken anything down. You've just moved it around, so that people selling kids can hide a little bit easier. And fucked up ComposerNate's site rankings, I guess.

To those that enjoyed using the site, sorry? For the sex workers that wanted to leave but could not, to any child sold at all on the site, and the children sold on the site and then murdered, sorry not sorry.

If you actually cared about any of the harm that can happen around these sites, you'd just be on them, watching for things that sound like they might be advertising kids and making your own posts for "young" girls.

That would not have stopped the money laundering, which was enough to shut down the site on its own.

That's what our cops did, by the way, if you responded to an ad for a "nineteen" year old girl, you risk a date with Officer Mustache.

Eh, you Canadians do it your way and we’ll do it our way, if that’s what you’re all aboot.

Also, “fuck a fan” videos. Fans don’t get paid. Th payment is the sex.

My understanding from a very awkward source is all of that is theater. Not to break the illusion for you, but all that incest porn? Not actually related. :-P

I can spot th fake ones. Lots of them on pornhub. I’m talking about the real amateur ones (clips4sale, manyvids).

Edit: unless those are fake, too. There a gray area to it.

It's not my department so I'll humbly toe the baseline. If they are out in the open about it, in America, the site is being regulated.

There are several safety concerns that would come along with the premise that a simple 'fan application' would not solve. Disease, injury, a fan going "too far" are just some off the top of my head.

It's an interesting premise, but you're ultimately relying on the truthfulness of the people selling the product. They would have every incentive to keep the fiction going. Van-drive-aways, brother-with-sister, and 'abuse' videos are also about keeping a fiction alive, as crimes are 'supposedly' occurring during them.

So could I run a service where I hire both the worker and the client to have sex because, well, I like to know people are fucking. Say pay one $20 and the other $200. And then they rent a room from me for $250. I have hired both to engage in wild rooting, they have chosen my offered room and it's competitive rate as the shagging Hut.

Did I just disrupt prostitution?

You should probably form an LLC before you proceed much further.

They'll be taxed on the service, you'll be taxed on the rent. Every state's different, but you will most likely need to get licensed ($) to offer to have people have sex for payment. Is your Shagging Hut zoned for that type of commerce? Are you recording any of this? (it's going to limit what state you're in)

All of this will be regulated.

The basic result of 'prostitution' has occurred, albeit in a safer environment with everyone paying their share for engaging in legal commerce. Probably not what everyone involved was expecting. Might have been easier and cheaper to send them on a date and tell them to fuck in either of their respective homes.

My work here is done. Buzzkill man, away!