GreenDell144

So he complies by taking his website down OR he faces justice. Hollow victory for justice, but better than nothing.

Corrupt authorities allowed bp to flourish. What about the traffickers? The scurry back under their rocks like roaches, unscathed.

Lord_Voldevoat

well, its like in this "vip trafficking" rings, they will not go after the "vips" of said rings. so they also will not go after the traffickers. its all just eyewash.

sore_ass_losers

Craig's List took down not only the Personals section but also Therapeutic Massage. I would say 90% of the ads in there in my locale were for Asian Massage Parlors, or AMPs. AMPs are often or usually a front for prostitution, and the workers are often trafficked.

sore_ass_losers

The Women's March Twitter of April 7:

"The shutting down of #Backpage is an absolute crisis for sex workers who rely on the site to safely get in touch with clients. Sex workers rights are women’s rights."

I guess pimps and traffickers are sex workers too.

https://twitter.com/womensmarch/status/982689439574085634

sunajAeon

Get a real fucking job other than sucking dick

Lord_Voldevoat

i'm pretty sure they also do real fucking at these jobs dude.

ridleychozo

Feel-good bullshit. They're not pimps or pedos. The users were. Notice how nobody in the press is going after the users who posted such content. SESTA/FOSTA's elimination of section 230 is a disaster. Section 230 already gave authorities teeth to take down founders and site owners who knowingly provided a place for child trafficking. Anytime they found stuff in the past, they cooperated with authorities and were able to help save kids from pedos. Now anyone can get charged for their users actions. This is more nuanced than you all think...

sore_ass_losers

Well, I'd call them pimps. Its not just their users actions, they actively edited posts that were too blatantly pimping children.

ridleychozo

I don't see evidence they edited posts that were "pimping children".

sore_ass_losers

Well there is no such evidence presented on this thread so far...

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/04/15/emails-reveal-how-backpage-edited-sex-ads-will-it-be-its-undoing/100436762/

'In January 2011, in an apparent response to the CNN report, Ferrer sent an email to Padilla suggesting the terms “daddy” and “little girl” be added to the list of filtered terms. Ferrer later suggested that additional words should be added to the filter: "high school," "school girl," "cheerleader," "innocent," "tight" and "fresh."'

So these terms were edited and then the ads were run.

"Backpage had publicly touted its role in aiding law enforcement by having staff send alerts if ads potentially contained underage girls or criminal acts. The website had congratulatory emails from law enforcement and a list of cases where it had testified against an accused pimp."

"But, according to the U.S. Senate report, Backpage’s use of an automatic filter hurt those efforts by editing out terms before any moderators would see the original ad."

"Automating the deletion of key terms, according to the Senate report, 'concealed the illegal nature of countless ads and systematically deleted words indicative of criminality, including child sex trafficking and prostitution of minors .'”

ridleychozo

"Automating the deletion of key terms, according to the Senate report, 'concealed the illegal nature of countless ads and systematically deleted words indicative of criminality, including child sex trafficking and prostitution of minors.'”

ok let's look at the Senate report

Second, Backpage knows that it facilitates prostitution and child sex trafficking. In addition to the evidence of systematic editing described above, additional evidence shows that Backpage is aware that its website facilitates prostitution and child sex trafficking.

ok, words were edited and they seem to be aware users use their site for child trafficking. Was it by manual edits or was it their filter?

Ferrer told Padilla in a November 17, 2010 email that the word “Lolita” “is code for under aged girl [sic].”138 A similar understanding led Ferrer to add the words “daddy” and “little girl” to the Strip Term From Ad filter.

Oh, it was their auto-filter. Makes sense if you don't want ads for kids on your site.

And what is the evidence Backpage was aware their site was being used for children in the report?

The Subcommittee’s investigation reveals that Backpage clearly understands that a substantial amount of child sex trafficking takes place on its website. Backpage itself reports cases of suspected child exploitation to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; in some months Backpage has transmitted hundreds of such reports to NCMEC.2

Oh. They know backpage knew, because backpage would willingly report their findings to NCMEC whenever they found child victims.

But, of course, the general public reported kids, too.

Backpage is involved in 73% of all child trafficking reports that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) receives from the general public

So... they're saying 75% of all children reported to the NCMEC are thanks to the site backpage. Doesn't that mean they made finding trafficked children a lot easier?

Last year, NCMEC reported an 846% increase from 2010 to 2015 in reports of suspected child sex trafficking—an increase the organization has found to be “directly correlated to the increased use of the Internet to sell children for sex.”

So they seem upset by additional 'reports' of sex trafficking. Is that because they prefer a world where child sex trafficking goes unreported?

As unsavory as it is to hear about this abuse, it is necessary if you are actually aiming to end it. All they've proven is that reports of trafficking have increased, not the trafficking itself. That just means it's more transparent, not more prevalent.

sore_ass_losers

"Oh, it was their auto-filter. Makes sense if you don't want ads for kids on your site."

The thing is though, the auto filter wasn't to kick ads off the site, they stripped the term from the ad so it could run and BP would make money without being obvious about offering underage girls. And this happened before their human moderators saw it, who might potentially report the ad to law enforcement.

BP enabled the child trafficking and helped it be not so blatant, thanks to the auto-filter. For those pimping children, now what? Just as BP prostitutes are hurting the pimps are hurting.

GreenDell144

Right, the removed terms became innocuous codewords that made it harder to catch them. No action was taken to catch or eliminate them. Naturally, the reports to necmec aren’t made for innocuous terms. The previous reporting only happened because of public outcry, IMO.

Also, it should be known that ncmec is co-intelpro. Many that run it and fund it and speak out for it are on our radar and highly suspicious.

ridleychozo

they stripped the term from the ad so it could run and BP would make money without being obvious about offering underage girls.

There's nothing to indicate that they wanted to "make money without being obvious about offering underage girls". I might agree if we could see some kind of client coaching on the subject from their emails, but there is nothing.

sore_ass_losers

Well an alternate approach would be for the auto-filter to trigger an audit by the moderators so that they could report clearly underage ads. But they chose to hide the terms from their moderators. I assume this was best for business.

ridleychozo

they chose to hide the terms from their moderators.

Incorrect. They chose to delete terms. "Hide" implies something was able to post and they concealed it from mods, which did not occur.

I agree with you about triggering an audit, though. It would have been nice if they built a feature like that, even though they are under no obligation to do so. To their credit, they built a site that was the singular source of 73% of independent researchers' reports to the NCMEC for child exploitation. That site is now gone. The kids, though, are still out there.

sore_ass_losers

"To their credit" and to the credit of their bank accounts. Fuck off.

ridleychozo

to the credit of their bank accounts.

Fair enough. We still don't know that they were aware, though. And they have a track record of working with police and testifying against traffickers when they are aware. I'm not sure you're being fair.

Also, just in case you don't believe this site was helpful in recovering victims, here is one story (of many) about a mother finding her 14-year old who'd been missing for 9 months: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2017/feb/24/mother-fights-back-against-site-sold-her-daug/414507/

sore_ass_losers

Your link does nothing to build support for your view of Backpage as some sort of good guys helping catch child traffickers. The affected parents were in an adversarial position with BP. They found their trafficked kids, not BP.

"Those children were sold, and [Backpage.com] simply tried to sanitize it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the definition of evil," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

Citing the Communications Decency Act, which provides publishers and internet communicators with immunity, the executives of Backpage had for years dodged lawsuits related to child trafficking.

At the January hearing, the subcommittee presented its findings that senators said proved Backpage employees edited ad language that signaled to the public and investigators that children were for sale on the site.

The internal Backpage documents revealed that, instead of deleting the ads that sold children when they were discovered by staff, Backpage moderators were instructed to just delete code words: fresh, young, rape, Lolita, virgin — signifying words that let users know an underage victim was for sale.

Though the incriminating words were edited, the children remained for sale.

"As early as 2006, Backpage executives began instructing staff responsible for screening ads (known as "moderators") to edit the text of adult ads to conceal the true nature of the underlying transaction," the report said.

Up to 80 percent of the ads on Backpage were edited, the report said, adding that Backpage does a lucrative business in the sex trade."

This is a bit different than the process described elsewhere of:

Submitted ad -> auto-filter -> moderators -> posted ad

ridleychozo

I'm arguing that they aren't criminals, not that they're 'good guys'. The 'goodness' of their site is a byproduct of their intent, but it's a good resource nevertheless. The best actually, according to people who are actually experts like Notre Dame law professor Alexandra Levy ( https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/08/how-section-230-helps-sex-trafficking-victims-and-sesta-would-hurt-them-guest-blog-post.htm ) special agent Russ Winkler ( http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20171130/106657/HHRG-115-IF16-Wstate-WinklerR-20171130-U41.pdf ) and others. My view is that the BP founders are neutral and good guys use their site to catch child traffickers.

Sen. Claire McCaskill is vying for political points and ignoring nuance as well as actions that materially save more victims. How many children will be saved as a result of this site shutdown? Fewer than if it were up. We should expect a 73% drop in reports.

Unfortunately yes, the article I provided does not describe the same auto-filter process described in the indictment... why that is I am not sure. Seems like if they really had something that strong they'd put it in the indictment...

Backpage moderators were instructed to just delete code words: fresh, young, rape, Lolita, virgin — signifying words that let users know an underage victim was for sale.

is totally at odds with the language from the indictment where they say

Ferrer told Padilla in a November 17, 2010 email that the word “Lolita” “is code for under aged girl [sic].”138 A similar understanding led Ferrer to add the words “daddy” and “little girl” to the Strip Term From Ad filter.

I can't explain that. If they had something that strong, why wouldn't they put it in the indictment??

sore_ass_losers

"can't explain that. If they had something that strong, why wouldn't they put it in the indictment??"

Could there have been some sort of agreement, we'll indict for promoting prostitution and ignore the stuff with the kids, if you plead guilty and don't fight a shutdown?

I still don't understand the money laundering charge, by the way.

ridleychozo

I could really care less about money laundering myself. All I care about is the kids and stopping the obscenely powerful forces of deception opposing the most vulnerable little people in the world. I'm convinced this scapegoating takedown of backpage is part of it.

new4now

They knew what they were doing when they started it

The CEO was busted before and just paid a fine

Slap on the wrists for all?

carmencita

Yeah slap on the wrist and I also smell a rat. A Big Fat Rat. This all went down way too fast, the guilty thing and all. Too fast.

new4now

They have played this before

Question is, Do they start back page back up, or try a new name?

carmencita

Or figure out some underground operation like the dark web. But really now the hands of the police are tied in a way. Backpage was a resource really that they could use to check out and then capture. Now where will they check.

new4now

Thats how the FBI uses the dark net

How many busts per the crimes make it worth it?

And how many intelligence agencies use it for outsourcing, finding fall guys?

Is it worth keeping it up?

carmencita

We are never really told what the statistics are. That is the problem. I also think when they have police posing as young children on the internet that it is very effective. The details are always murky about the dark web. How do we even find out whether they have been making inroads on the CP problem on the web. Darkness on the Dark Web. Never very much info is released or written about it unless we search it out here.

new4now

I always thinking this how they communicate to Isis and the MS13 members, also talk amoungst themself

carmencita

You may be right. A secret space of their own. And no one but them and pedos.

sore_ass_losers

"Today, the Justice Department announced that Backpage’s co-founder and CEO, Carl Ferrer, 57, of Frisco, Texas, has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to facilitate prostitution using a facility in interstate or foreign commerce and to engage in money laundering. Additionally, several Backpage-related corporate entities, including Backpage.com LLC, have entered guilty pleas to conspiracy to engage in money laundering."

So 'conspiracy to facilitate prostitution', nothing specific about child prostitution and trafficking.

At least they are shut down.

sore_ass_losers

Also plead guilty to charges in Texas today: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2498179

Guilty means no trial, less publicity.