Backpage.com seized by U.S. justice authorities - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-backpage-justice/sex-marketplace-backpage-com-seized-by-u-s-justice-authorities-posting-idUSKCN1HD2QP <comment><USER2> Both sex worker anecdotes, and some larger studies, suggest the availability of such online services actually reduce violence, homicide, and sex trafficking. See for example:

[https://thinkprogress.org/craigslist-erotic-services- platfor...](https://thinkprogress.org/craigslist-erotic-services- platform-3eab46092717/)

<comment><USER3> To be clear, people were pimping out children on backpage. We're not taking about consenting adults in every case.

<comment><USER4> They are also using Gmail to do that. Do you agree with the SESTA/FOSTA legislation?

<comment><USER5> Make a case that someone at Google _knows_ what accounts are involved in this activity and _is letting it happen so they can profit from it_ and then you'll have a fair comparison.

<comment><USER6> This is wrong. SESTA-FOSTA has dramatically lowered the bar. Some quotes:

"The new bill holds website owners legally liable for criminal prosecution for any sex trafficking discussions that are viewable on their platform."

"The legislation says a website is responsible if it "assists, supports, or facilitates" sex trafficking. Some of the vague wording opens up the bill for interpretation and has critics fearing frivolous lawsuits against platforms that didn't know trafficking was happening on their site."

The bar is not "knowingly aided". The bar is "built a platform that someone else used to sex-traffic".

<comment><USER5> This is not that vague. If I post a comment about prostitution on HN, HN is not liable (HN is clearly not a sex trafficking site), whereas the operator of The Erotic Review is definitely within scope of getting fucked.

This is about eradicating purpose-driven websites related to prostitution. Backpage's C-team did some really, really bad stuff. No jury is going to convict the CEO of Reddit because someone somewhere posted a comment about prostitution on a subreddit. Section 230 still exists.

<comment><USER7> _If I post a comment about prostitution on HN, HN is not liable_

Are you sure? And are you in a position to be making that call?

 _No jury is going to convict the CEO of Reddit because someone somewhere posted a comment about prostitution on a subreddit._

That's probably why Reddit eliminated basically all the subreddits related to prostitution. They're also probably less concerned about their CEO being jailed than they are about massive fines.

<comment><USER8> I think the biggest issue is having your domain seized prior to trial and conviction.

MX records are gone at that point, so the press cannot contact general counsel for comments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Everyone who's decrying the demise of backpage as a safe and beneficial place, please take a moment and read the first two pages of the Senate Report.

Backpage had a system in place to detect ads offering e.g. child sex and... _edit those ads to conceal their criminal nature from detection_ by rephrasing the give-away words with less obvious ones. You would think they would report those ads, but no - they concealed.

[1] [https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report...](https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report%202017.01.10%20FINAL.pdf)

<comment><USER10> In Backpage's defense, they were instructed to block those words by their legal team and law enforcement, as those words are not allowed to be posted because they indicate sexual favors in exchange for money, i.e. prostitution.

<comment><USER11> They could have, you know, rejected the ads outright and/or passed the info on to law enforcement automatically. Simply filtering the words implies they knew what was going on but did just enough to (hopefully) have plausible deniability.

<comment><USER12> Yes exactly, I'd normally be a staunch defender of Backpage here, assuming they merely acted as a middle man ala Craigslist or any other listings site. Similar to ISPs with the Safe Harbour Act or Tor.

But Backpage actively helped these guys create ads that won't trigger any red flags. Instead of blocking the posts, warning them, or straight up banning them, the listing wizard directly suggested ways to conceal illegal activity after detecting 'bad' keywords, in order to help allow the user to continue to use the site.

This feature most likely had good intentions for other law abiding users, likely for the largely majority of cases, but it was pretty damn obvious how it also helps some seriously bad guys. You'd just have to look at some of the example keywords which would trigger this automated assistance...

Backpage played an active role not just a reactionary passive one. Which is why I understand and support legal action against them - although I'm not sure seizing is the right approach, but that's another story.

<comment><USER13> So... let's walk through this...

1) Paying customer creates an ad (I haven't used Backpage, but I assume they paid to create ads).

2) Paying customer enters some words that the Government has told Backpage not to allow.

3) Backpage's automatic web form error message says... "Hey, you've added some words the Government won't let you use... sorry... it's not us, it's Uncle Sam."

4) Customer changes words to get around filters... I assume things like "sex" turns into "s3x" \-- or whatever the bare minimum number of changes were to get around the censorship.

5) Customer posts ads, skirts Government censorship; feels smug and satisfied for beating the system.

6) Government isn't happy that the intent of the filtered words wasn't enforced... expected Backpage to have more (costly) manual review of ads, instead of just exact keyword blocks on ad creation.

7) Backpage was like, "Manual review would destroy our business model..." so they fought it...

8) Government took over and shut them down.

Again, I haven't read anything on this... but that's my assumption based on how the Government and tech work. Am I wrong?

<comment><USER14> It's way worse than that.

Instead of just assuming, if you don't want to read it all, read just pages 2 and 3 (summary).

[https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report...](https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report%202017.01.10%20FINAL.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Legal problems against Backpage have been brewing for awhile. Its CEO was arrested in 2016 and charged with pimping. The pimping charges have since been thrown out but he and his fellow execs face 27 other charges, including money laundering: [http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article168969032.html](http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article168969032.html)

<comment><USER16> Yup, people would like to spin this as the government cracking down on garden- variety prostitution, yet Backpage in particular has many dubious ties to child trafficking.

<comment><USER17> What are those ties? The article above only mentions "adult services" and sex work.

<comment><USER12> When users submitted listings with keywords like "young girls" (and worse) it would automatically detect them and suggest edits to allow the listing to still be posted without triggering any red flags. Among other things (?).

Which is why the feds believe they crossed the line into actively assisting criminal activity when they should have just been dissuading or outright blocking the people creating this type of content on the site.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Backpage was a major example of why SESTA/FOSTA was "necessary". It seems convenient that it wasn't taken down until after the passage of SESTA (despite the fact that the takedown did not leverage any of the new provisions, AFAICT (EDIT: as cft points out, the bill has not yet been signed by the President, so clearly it was not necessary))

<comment><USER19> SESTA has not been signed by Trump yet afaik. In this case, it actually shows that to take down Backpage SESTA was unneeded.

<comment><USER20> Yep, hasn't been signed yet ([https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180406/13555839585/doj-s...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180406/13555839585/doj- seizes-shuts-down-backpagecom-before-sesta-has-even-been-signed.shtml))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Backpage.com was a general purpose onlined classified system that included a handful of adult services sections among dozens of others. The use of "sex marketplace" here explains the basis of the seizure, but is misleading as a description of the site seized (Unlike, say, the myredbook.com seizure, which was a straight-up sex marketplace.)

<comment><USER22> I recall visiting Backpage 4-5 years ago to crosspost some stuff I was trying to sell on CL. I took one look and closed the tab. It was incredibly obvious what their business was focused on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> First they came for the prostitutes, and I said nothing, because I was not a prostitute.

<comment><USER24> Well, more accurately, they appear to have come for the pimps.

<comment> GCU-Empiricist How is coming for the webpage that acts as a marketplace coming for the pimps?

<comment><USER24> I was using 'pimps' as short-hand for the people brokering sex worker transactions, be they platform admins or some guy named Icepick.

My sense is that, in most cases, sex workers do not act as their own agents, so I see backpage as a platform catering to pimps et al.

Though I guess there's an argument to be made that sites like backpage make it easier for sex workers to disintermediate pimps, which I imagine would be a good thing.

<comment><USER25> > My sense is that, in most cases, sex workers do not act as their own agents, > so I see backpage as a platform catering to pimps et al.

Just fyi, you are mistaken. That is the whole reason they have to force/traffick people and trap them rather than just recruit. Anyone here legally and does that sort of sex work has mostly moved away from the pimps.

> Though I guess there's an argument to be made that sites like backpage make > it easier for sex workers to disintermediate pimps, which I imagine would be > a good thing.

Legal adult citizens who were prostitutes were doing exactly that.

Pretty much since "online personals" became a thing, sex workers quickly removed all the intermediaries beyond the ads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I have a real estate business and this is one of the sites I have used to post my real estate listings. It wasn't a large part of business, but I did get regular leads from the site. I mostly used craigslist, facebook and zillow, but this was a solid 4th place source of leads for me. I'm self employed and these sites are how I make my living. So not all of the users are posting sex ads. I don't like the title calling it a sex marketplace. It makes it sounds like this is the only thing on the website.

<comment><USER27> I can buy a shirt at Whole Foods. It's still a grocery store.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I vacillate on this.

On the one hand, I don't think prostitution should be illegal.

On the other hand, it's not clear whether marketplaces like backpage bring the black-market closer to the light of day & make things safer for sex workers, or if they amplify demand to the point where suppliers have incentive to find new sex workers using more and more coercive methods.

<comment><USER28> To help you decide, consider what you think of when you hear "prostitution." Do you think of women standing on a street corner smoking and getting in cars and getting beat up by pimps and unable to go to the police for help like in 80s movies?

Or do you think of something more like a doctor's office with security cameras, a receptionist, online reviews?

Because it seems modern, legal prostitution is a lot more like a medical service, similar to how veterinarians calm a cat in heat [1].

[1] [https://everything2.com/title/How+to+calm+a+cat+in+heat](https://everything2.com/title/How+to+calm+a+cat+in+heat)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm curious if this only made possible by the recent SESTA/FOSTA law that was passed. It's not like Backpage is anything new, so why take it down now?

If it is related to those laws, this is significant precedent for websites being responsible for user posted content. I'm afraid of what it's going to do to communities like Reddit and HN.

If I post a zero-day in the comments section here, YC could be responsible for the damages it causes.

<comment><USER30> > I'm curious if this only made possible by the recent SESTA/FOSTA law that > was passed. It's not like Backpage is anything new, so why take it down now?

It has not been signed into law yet, so it couldn't be. Now that the seizure has happened, the bill wouldn't apply to it even if signed, because A1S9 of the US Constitution states:

      No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Here's the legislation:

[https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house- bill/1865](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> They are coming for porn next.

<comment><USER32> Yeah 'sex trafficking' is really code name for porn for many of the orgs pushing these changes.

I wonder how long reddit NSFW subreddits last.

The argument that porn leads to more sex trafficking is a false equivalence, faulty comparison and false analogy. You could argue prostitution being illegal instead of legal contributes to more sex trafficking.

I think keeping legal porn and making prostitution legal help as it is something that is always in demand, fighting it makes it more unsafe in underground markets.

Things people will do no matter if it is illegal or legal that harm noone and is consenting adults or something you do to your own body, it is better to have it in a mainstream market so it can be more easily regulated and ultimately safer than black/underground markets.

People pushing these laws think if you have a law the activity stops, yet it only makes it worse and more dangerous. Same with abortion, same with drug wars, same with abstinence education over sex education, basically any moral laws beyond civil rights does not work to change behavior and can make it worse.

For proof of this see alcohol prohibition, the 18th amendment and then the 21st when they realize their mistake. You could also argue the drug wars falls under that. You could also argue that there would be LESS human trafficking if prostitution was legal.

<comment><USER33> > The argument that porn leads to more sex trafficking is a false equivalence

Except in Backpage's case it knowingly facilitated sex trafficing of children, and they wen't out of their way to frustrate law enforcement efforts to investigate those crimes.

<comment><USER34> > Except in Backpage's case it knowingly facilitated sex trafficing of > children, and they wen't out of their way to frustrate law enforcement > efforts to investigate those crimes.

All of which, if true, is already illegal and always has been. Which is why Backpage was shut down before FOSTA/SESTA was signed into law, and why there was already an active case against them, because they already lost immunity under the CDA.

SESTA and FOSTA have as little to do with sex trafficking as the PATRIOT act had to do with patriotism.

<comment><USER21> > PATRIOT act had to do with patriotism.

USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) was labeled as being about _terrorism_ in the way that SESTA was labeled as being about sex trafficking.

<comment><USER34> > USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate > Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) was labeled as being > about terrorism

That's ...exactly what I'm saying? It was nominally "about" patriotism - patriotism being presented and viewed in contemporary discourse from 2001 as the binary opposition to terrorism, in more ways than just legislation.

Terrorism is broadly an act of political violence against the state, and patriotism is broadly a demonstration of support for the state. The PATRIOT act invoked the rhetoric of one to nominally fight the other, although in practice that was just an excuse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Can we stop treating sex workers like second class citizens? Fucking Christ, getting rid of vetted escort aggregates like Backpage will only increase trafficking.

FOSTA and SESTA are anti-sex work bills disguised as sex trafficking bills so that politicians can attack anybody criticizing them.

<comment><USER17> How does Backpage "vet"?

<comment><USER35> "vet" may not have been the best term to use, I'll admit. That said, services like Backpage are much safer for sex workers to use as opposed to picking up more random clients on the street.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I worked with the defense department on tracking human trafficking for several years. Backpage was literally the front door to so much trafficking. There are many steps the site could have taken to stop trafficking but it didn't. The consensual sex worker should not rely on a marketplace that allows the abuse of children and enslaved persons.

<comment><USER37> The consensual sex worker is demonized exactly the same regardless of where they seek to sell their services.

<comment><USER36> This is not true. I realize that Backpage was the platform that had the largest audience after red book was shut down. If you look at sites in Germany and Australia the sex worker doesn't have to hide since laws protect them. Legalizing sex work is a different path than condoning slavery.

<comment><USER37> You're right, I should have added "in the US."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Searched a bit, and it appears that eccie.net might be doing more volume than the one or two forums on backpage.

Curious why they are not targeted as well. Maybe better "provider" screening for underage girls?

<comment><USER33> Backpage was an active participant. They knew what was happening and encouraged it.

You can find more info here: [https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report...](https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report%202017.01.10%20FINAL.pdf)

<comment><USER39> Lmfao, you don't know what eccie is then do you?

I trust the Admins of Backpage about as much as I trust the Senate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> GCU-Empiricist Craigslist declined to be the testcase, it will be interesting to see how this goes with lawmakers specifically targeting the site. Is tinder or other e-dating forums next?

<comment><USER40> Which I would have to say was a smart move on their part.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> An outright prostitution marketplace (review site, advertising, transaction facilitation) seems like one of the most obvious businesses for jurisdictional arbitrage. It's not illegal in some markets (although I'm not sure which); unlike an online service which holds assets, there's no real need to identify or know the site operators. The natural advertisers on such a site are either porn/adult affiliates or prostitutes themselves, none of which would have problems contracting with an offshore entity.

Bitcoin today, especially if you couldn't use any of the major wallet providers, is probably beyond the usability cliff for people in this market, but it's enough of a closed market that some kind of payment system should be bootstrapable.

<comment><USER42> Ask the Pirate Bay how well that jurisdictional arbitrage works out.

<comment><USER41> They didn't have a single jurisdiction where their activity was actually legal, hence no ability to arbitrage. Prostitution is legal in at least some places, and it would be easy to find a jurisdiction which, for money, would permit a prostitution-organizing site which exempted the local jurisdiction.

<comment><USER42> Not quite true, they had a fair argument that it was legal to begin with, but significant international pressure put an end to that in relatively short order.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Oh no, people paying for sex?! The horror!

</comment><comment><USER44> Most likely effect of pushing this marketplace underground will be to reduce its size (total sex transactions per year) but make it much more dangerous for those who continue to participate (both buyers and sellers).

</comment><comment><USER45> Thanks, I guess. Only accelerating the blockchain+ipfs combo.

<comment><USER46> If authority wants to shut it down, they will figure out a way.

<comment><USER45> Like thepiratebay? (yes it's down today, still is up most of the time)

<comment><USER46> Pirate Bay is blocked in most of the world:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_blocking_access_to_T...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_blocking_access_to_The_Pirate_Bay)

<comment><USER45> "blocked"

[http://uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion/](http://uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Shouldn't decentralized systems prevent this type of seizure. What's keeping someone from building a Blockchain version of backpage?

<comment><USER22> > what's keeping someone

Reality, block chain is not the answer to every question

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> We put together this blog post to follow the DNS data:

Backpage.com Seizure and What Happens to Seized Domains [https://securitytrails.com/blog/backpage- seize](https://securitytrails.com/blog/backpage-seize)

</comment><comment><USER49> Would guess that the timing isn't coincidental...

[https://www.yahoo.com/news/concerned-evangelical- christians-...](https://www.yahoo.com/news/concerned-evangelical-christians- meet-trump-184300704.html)

</comment><comment><USER50> How about a reality check?

[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/04/12/the_wo...](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/04/12/the_womens_march_and_backpagecom_a_sordid_story_136784.html)

</comment><comment><USER51> This is horrible. I don't get invited to parties at the Playboy mansion (like our Dear Leader). How am I supposed to meet sex workers now?

<comment><USER52> I guess if you were to put out an ad saying that you want to hire people to have sex with you on video for commercial purposes, that would be OK.

<comment> ryan-allen Oh, the irony.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> ryan-allen To be relaunched offshore in 3.. 2.. 1..

What I found fascinating about backpage was the 'car parts' sales. It was all blatant drug advertising! 'Bumper for 79 Ford, 420, ice, whatever else you want'.

</comment><comment><USER53> I noticed that backpage.mx and backpage.it are also down. Does this mean the US can seize non US domain extensions? Or are they down because they redirected to US site? That is odd.

</comment><comment><USER54> Sexual repression is the cornerstone of fascist societies. Source:

Mass Psychology of Fascism, Wilhelm Reich

</comment><comment><USER10> So what happens when the women (the vast majority of which are choosing this lifestyle to make money to feed their kids), start posting ads in the for sale section, the jobs wanted section, etc? They should remove every news paper, every web site that allows users to post messages, basically every web site on the internet.

</comment><comment><USER55> Hooray, conservative upswing on the moral sinus curve that is us-history. Remember its okay to cheer laws on, that feel right in your guts, as long as one does not think about the consequences and props up a non-sensical tear- filled story to build up some outrage shield.

Just look at this incoherent rambling - this copy pasted together nonsense, that stops making sense the moment your tears no longer flow: [https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you- need...](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-need-to-know- about-backpage-com-and-sex-trafficking/)

Okay, if every human beeing endavouring in prostitution had its own physical server, its own craigs-list equivalent of a web-page, marketing only its services- this would be not covered by the law?

Or is even programming such a p2p service - no matter for what it is used now a felony?

<comment><USER56> > Or is even programming such a p2p service - no matter for what it is used > now a felony?

I've wondered this as well.

I am not big into anything illegal, but I think this increasing censorship is alarming.

Unfortunately, it has also chilled my desire to help build such services because they'll just slap me with money laundering or RICO or whatever they want.

<comment><USER22> You need to actually do something incredibly stupid to find yourself in the position. Sorry to say, your software skills are not that important. When you cross the line to asking "how can I make your criminal activities easier" you might have a problem then. Ie that guy that got busted for selling custom blackberries and admitted they were perfect for selling narcotics

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Interesting side aspect to the report is that Larkin and Lacey reside in Arizona and owned the New Times and Village Voice [1], they separated backpage content from those.

Both the New Times and Village Voice are advocates on issues of civil rights and they cause lots of problems for authoritarian politicians and organizations trying to control people's lives [2][3]. Lacey and Larkin Fund is a huge supporter/funder of groups like ACLU and immigrant groups who donate heavily to civil right causes[2][6].

Part of the attack on backpage is political in my opinion after looking at the facts.

> _Backpage started as the literal back page of the New Times, filled with > classified ads._

> _Lacey and Larkin, former New Times executives who sold off the newspaper > chain in 2012, retained the lucrative interest in the Backpage website._

Both Larkin and Lacey are big civil right advocates and donate heavily to civil rights causes, sex rights, gay rights and immigrant rights [2][3] and the New Times attack politicians for corruption on the regular. After they attacked Arpaio they had nearly a decade of attacks from him and associated groups [5]. They did a strange tactic attacking Larkin and Lacey going after New Times readers.

> _In October 2007, Maricopa County sheriff 's deputies arrested Lacey and > Larkin on charges of revealing secret grand jury information concerning the > investigations of the New Times's long-running feud with Maricopa County > sheriff Joe Arpaio. In July 2004, the New Times published Arpaio's home > address in the context of a story about his real estate dealings, which the > County Attorney's office was investigating as a possible crime under Arizona > state law. A special prosecutor served Village Voice Media with a subpoena > ordering it to produce "all documents" related to the original real estate > article, as well as "all Internet web site traffic information" to a number > of articles that mentioned Arpaio._ [5]

Arpaio tried to get all information on all Phoenix New Times readers and the paper has been known to be tough on Arpaio overreaches in Arizona on immigrants and non-conservatives.

> _The prosecutor further ordered Village Voice Media to produce the IP > addresses of all visitors to the Phoenix New Times website since January 1, > 2004, as well as which websites those readers had been to prior to visiting. > As an act of "civil disobedience", Lacey and Larkin published the contents > of the subpoena on or about October 18, which resulted in their arrests the > same day.On the following day, the county attorney dropped the case after > declining to pursue charges against the two._ [5]

> _The special prosecutor 's subpoena included a demand for the names of all > people who had read the Arpaio story on the newspaper's website. It was the > revealing of the subpoena information by the New Times which led to the > arrests. Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas dropped the charges less > than 24 hours after the two were arrested_ [5]

> _In the weeks following the arrests, members of the Association of > Alternative Newsweeklies, of which the Phoenix New Times is a member, > provided links on their websites to places where Arpaio 's address could be > found. This was done to show solidarity with the Phoenix New Times._[5]

There is a strange section of the Backpage report attacking Lacey and Larkin for selling it to an outside investor who is offshore. They appear to hide ownership from them some might say wisely if it is being the whipping boy for 'trafficking' claims when really it is a sex worker ad website [4].

> _Third, despite the reported sale of Backpage to an undisclosed foreign > company in 2014, the true beneficial owners of the company are James Larkin, > Michael Lacey, and Carl Ferrer. Acting through a complex chain of domestic > and international shell companies, Lacey and Larkin lent Ferrer over $600 > million to purchase Backpage from them. But as a result of this deal, Lacey > and Larkin retain significant financial and operational control, hold almost > complete debt equity in the company, and still receive large distributions > of company profits. According to the consultant that structured the deal, > moreover, this transaction appears to provide no tax benefits. Instead, it > serves only to obscure Ferrer's U.S.-based ownership and conceal Lacey and > Larkin's continued beneficial ownership._

I'd say part of the attack on backpage is political and shuts down a big political donor for civil rights and typically liberal aims [2]. It seems them selling off the New Times, Village Voice and moving ownership overseas from 2012-2014 irked some politicians and authoritarians.

The Backpage report claims of 'trafficking' amounts to simply a profanity filter that backpage created to PREVENT people posting bad ads or possible 'trafficking' not encouraging it [4].

The report says Backpage 'knowingly concealed evidence of criminality' for removing bad terms being posted due to a profanity/word filter? They didn't want people posting ads with these terms because they were bad words, not that they supported it[4].

That argument is like saying, because a site profanity filter removed racial slurs that the site was 'knowingly concealing evidence of racism'.

The whole idea was to block it not some devious hiding scheme. Understand backpage made lots of money, they wouldn't risk it for 'trafficking' and 'child trafficking' is such a reach that it just seems tacked on to the report with no evidence of it. Of course backpage doesn't want bad words posted to their ads, doesn't every classified site?

New Times, Village Voice and by association, Backpage, have all been targets in Arizona by Arpaio, McCain and authoritarian orgs mainly because they are tough on authoritarian politicians including Trump, it seems there was more to this attack than what is stated in the report.

The New Times has a history in being pro-civil rights and anti-war.

> _The Phoenix New Times is a free alternative weekly Phoenix, Arizona > newspaper, published each Thursday. It was the founding publication of New > Times Media (now Village Voice Media), but The Village Voice is now the > flagship publication of that company._ [5]

 _The paper was founded in 1970 by a group of students at Arizona State University, led by Frank Fiore, Karen Lofgren, Michael Lacey, Bruce Stasium, Nick Stupey, Gayle Pyfrom, Hal Smith, and later, Jim Larkin, as a counterculture response to the Kent State shootings in the spring of that year. Gary Brennan played a role in its creation. According to the 20th Anniversary issue of the New Times, published on May 2, 1990, Fiore suggested that the anti-war crowd put out its own paper. The first summer issues were called the Arizona Times and assembled in the staff 's La Crescenta apartments across from ASU. The Arizona Times was renamed the New Times as the first college issue went to press in September 1970._[5]

New Times pushes civil rights and personal freedoms including ending marijuana prohibition and calls out prohibitionists in Arizona, as well as other causes for personal freedom [7].

New Times has been kicking up dust on authoritarianism since the 70s. Lacey and Larkin also won a lawsuit against Arizona as recently as 2013 for false arrest which is still used to attack them [5].

> _In December 2013, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors agreed to pay > Phoenix New Times founders Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin $3.75 million to > settle their false arrest lawsuit against the county defendants._

Take a look at their civil rights fund to see what I mean about how they take authority orgs/politicians to task and encourage civil rights [2]. They have been trying to take down the New Times, Village Voice Media and Backpage for nearly a decade and a half [5]. The whole report on Backpage, and their owners Lacey and Larkin who started New Times and Village Voice, might be a massive ad hominem [4]. It also appears to be an attack on owners of alternative media influence and funding for civil rights matters.

My guess is Lacey and Larkin, civil rights fighters that seem similar to Larry Flynt[2], won't let this just happen and they'll fight it. Most of the attacks on Backpage, and previously the New Times and Village Voice, attacks their character via ad hominems because they are causing trouble for authoritarians and pushing alternative news media funding, my guess is this takedown of Backpage is no different.

[1] [https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2018/04/0...](https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2018/04/06/fbi- raids-backpage-founders-sedona-home-website-down/494538002/)

[2] [http://www.laceyandlarkinfronterafund.org/](http://www.laceyandlarkinfronterafund.org/)

[3] [http://www.phoenixmag.com/valley-news/i-fought-the-law- and.h...](http://www.phoenixmag.com/valley-news/i-fought-the-law-and.html)

[4] [https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report...](https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report%202017.01.10%20FINAL.pdf)

[5] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_New_Times](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_New_Times)

[6] [https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2017/0...](https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2017/04/20/gop- pressures-kyrsten-sinema-on-backpage-donations/100683704/)

[7] [http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/here-are-the- prohibition...](http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/here-are-the- prohibitionists-whove-donated-10-000-or-more-to-keep-marijuana-a-felony-in- arizona-8794628)

</comment><comment><USER57> lol where are all the male politicians going to turn to know?

</comment><comment><USER58> This is akin to seizing a house in which trafficking occurs.

<comment><USER33> It really isn't. It's akin to seizing a house when the owner tells the criminal gangs how to advertise to evade law enforcement attention.

Backpage knew exactly what was happening (the drugging, kidnapping, and rape of children for money being advertised on backpage), and they actively encouraged it.

[https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report...](https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report%202017.01.10%20FINAL.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> weird, backpage.com is still up for me.

<comment> GCU-Empiricist Try looking at any of the boards. The city listing of marketplaces is up but that is as far as it goes.

<comment><USER46> I think you have caches in your browser or on your network. When I visit, it is blocked on the main page.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> On the whole, this looks like a positive step in the right direction. What I wonder is how much effort did the US Justice dept / local authorities put into getting backpage.com to pull these kinds of listings? Craigslist seems to have cleaned itself up well.

<comment> GCU-Empiricist >Craigslist seems to have cleaned itself up well.

Removing everything is cleaning up well? By the same analogy you should remove your toilet, permanently, from your house to flush it.

<comment><USER61> Also remove your penis since it can be used for naughty things.</comment></comment></comment>


StarCraft II Started Edition - Sign up. It's Free to Play. - <AUTHOR> https://us.battle.net/account/sc2/starter-edition/index.xml

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure why, but the page is in Korean. Here is an English blog post: <http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/3250656#blog></comment>