Craigslist Censored: Adult Section Comes Down - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/03/craigslist-censored-adult-section-comes-down/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Techcrunch+(TechCrunch) <comment><USER2> I hear quite often that prostitution would be a wonderfully pleasant industry if it were only legal, which does not square with the experiences of countries where it is legal or tolerated.

You pretty much have to be running schoolgirls out of homeroom to get the Nagoya police to so much as glance in your direction, but Japanese prostitution is a very, very ugly place to be, and much of it is based on trafficking. I live two hundred feet from a "Korean aesthetic salon" which is open at three A.M. in the morning. One of the not-so-young ladies who works there has taken to sleeping on the bus bench across the street recently, in heat which has nearly sent me to the hospital twice. You may have heard that Japan has a _storied_ relationship with its Korean immigrants. Those who do -- to use a nauseating euphemism -- the jobs Japanese girls won't do can expect neglect from polite society, because polite society knows that inquiring into her circumstances means they have to know what goes on in those walls, and they are very interested in keeping up the fiction that they do not know what goes on in those walls.

Or take the European experience. Amsterdam, city of lights, so much more sophisticated than the American puritans, perfectly legal thriving sex trade, right? It has been taken over by Russian mafia who are undercutting the locals via use of trafficked girls from Eastern Europe. You always have the option as a merchant of sex slaves to one-up what the "morally upright prostitutes" allow, safe in the knowledge that _they will cover for you_ because an investigation into what you are doing harms their business interests. Society, meanwhile, has no great desire to actually police what happens inside of brothels, preferring to believe its sanity-saving fictions like "she wants to be there", "it is just sex between two consenting adults", and "no slaves live on my block."

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/world/europe/24amsterdam.h...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/world/europe/24amsterdam.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2)

Prostitution, legal or otherwise, is not pretty. It is based, root and branch, on exploitation. To the extent you think that legalizing it will end the exploitation, you believe something which is contrary to reality.

<comment><USER3> I'm confused here - according to Wikipedia, (coital) prostitution is illegal in Japan.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Japan>

As you say, it takes a lot for the police to get involved - I'll speculate that they only pay attention when the monthly envelope of cash is light.

That isn't the model pushed by most advocates of legal prostitution that I've heard - most want prostitution to be legal in the same way that restaurants are. It actually takes very little to get the authorities to come take a look at your restaurant - complaints of a roach or the computer randomly selecting you for an inspection are usually sufficient.

<comment><USER4> > I'm confused here - according to Wikipedia, (coital) prostitution is illegal > in Japan.

And so is gambling, yet you'll find plenty of pachinko parlours or soaplands/"health salons" announced very explicitly. I believe the main reason is that many of these places are run by Yakuza (organized crime), and police would rather not stir up the hornet's nest - there's a sort of tacit agreement.

<comment><USER5> You've missed the point. The original premise from patio11 was that legalizing prostitution doesn't automatically make it all safe, aboveboard, and free from crime. Then he used Japan as an example... except that prostitution isn't legal there. Regardless of how it's treated by the police, the point is that it's _not_ legal, and that skews how the illegal operations work.

(Regardless, my feeling is that Japan's attitude toward sexuality is so different from that of Europe/the Americas that it's a little hard to make good comparisons anyway.)

The Amsterdam argument is interesting and worthy of further discussion, at least.

<comment><USER6> A lot of places where prostitution is legal, pimping is not, e.g., Germany, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. There's less of a trafficking problem in those places, since it can and does get prosecuted (though there still are problems, since here sadly is demand for underage prostitutes etc.)

In the Netherlands, pimping is legal though, which may contribute specifically to the problems they are seeing. I'm not the only one who thinks so:

[http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/curren...](http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/ams070921mc- redirected)

I don't think the ban ever happened though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I bet most of the people freaking out about CL's adult services haven't considered that censorship usually leads to an increased demand. They're doing an excellent job advertising to the world that you can easily buy sex online. If they really wanted to help people they'd be advocating a safe highly regulated adult services industry that satisfies the demand while eliminating most of the ugly side effects of prohibition. They completely reject this idea so it seems obvious to me their agenda is more about moral pontificating than helping people or they truly have no understanding of how the real world works.

<comment><USER8> The Cook County (Chicago) Sheriff, Tom Dart, has been leading the charge on this. The Tribune had an article a few days ago about him increasing prostitution busts, and putting up ads around O'Hare warning johns to stay away.

With all this moral outrage coming out of him about prostitution, I'm expecting that he'll soon be arrested in a prostitution bust.

Anti-prostitution groups always drag out trafficking as a reason to be against prostitution, and also child prostitution. But being a prostitute or being a john are both misdemeanor offences, whereas trafficking and sexual child abuse are both _very_ serious felony charges. It seems to me that anti-trafficking and child sexual abuse laws are a lot more effective in dealing with those problems than general anti-prostitution laws are.

The argument about trafficking really rings hollow. These busts mostly target the prostitutes. If they really wanted to find trafficking victims, they'd get a lot better luck approaching women not in the context of arresting them, and asking them about their situation. Throwing women against the police car and slapping handcuffs on them seems counterproductive if your goal is to limit trafficking. If anything, it reinforces everything the traffickers tell the women about the police, making them less likely to cooperate.

If a women is not a victim of sex slavery or underage, it seems absurd that she could be charged with a crime for selling something she can legally give away for free.

<comment><USER9> From the perspective of the police force, prostitution being illegal is 1% moral uptightness, and 99% pragmatism. Having prostitution be a misdemeanor helps catch people in the act of other, more serious crimes, as the "crime" of prostitution justifies search warrants to otherwise-unassailable places. It's a workaround for a permissions issue, basically, and has no _ethical_ justification.

<comment><USER10> >It's a workaround for a permissions issue, basically, and has no ethical justification.

I think you mean no ethical justification that you agree with.

For example, take as an axiom "sex should only be allowed between partners in long term monandrous relationships" and it follows logically from there.

This is _an_ ethical justification. You just apparently disagree with the premise. Most theistic ethical systems have something akin to this as a rule (whether derived or axiomatic within the system).

<comment><USER9> If you're starting with complex axioms like

> "sex should only be allowed between partners in long term monandrous > relationships"

then what you've got is a _moral_ justification, not an ethical one.

<comment><USER10> I've only dabbled in moral philosophy (the study of ethics!) but my understanding is that the more common use amongst professional philosophers is that ethics relates to a system established usually by a particular group, like a legal code or religious doctrine whilst morals concern an individuals actions. Morality then is considered to concern a naturally occurring right whilst ethics concerns a constructed set of rules (often based on or intended to enforce particular morals).

The terms in common parlance are used interchangeably and unfortunately even those (possibly novices) working in the art use the terms in a contrary way - [http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/ethics-vs-morality-the- dist...](http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/ethics-vs-morality-the-distinction- between-ethics-and-morals/) highlights the mess very well.

Perhaps you could enlarge on your objection, is it merely semantic or does it have a substantial element too?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I never thought TC would ever come up with a quote worth, uh, quoting, but pigs are in flight today!

 _If it's just a sex crime it isn't a story. But if a listing on Craigslist was involved, it's a big story._

Painfully true.

It's all bullshit as well, this "OMG Sex crimes" nonsense. We investigate sex crimes (i.e. rape, abuse, murder etc.) caused by the internet - literally none of them (and I am well above 60 investigations in that area now) have anything to do with personal ads such as the ones censored here.

I might be out on a limb here because a) this is based on only a small amount of empirical evidence and b) I've not talked to colleagues to get their take on it, but, most of the internet derived sex crime comes from the "under the radar" sleazy dating sites or, more likely, simply someone they managed to get on MSN.

These people prey on those looking for a boyfriend, not someone looking to sell sex. Prostitutes are, for the most part, not stupid - they know when to take a deal or walk away.

I can't help feeling crusades such as this are actually harmful. </rant>

</comment><comment><USER12> I can't understand the motivations for this.

Several state attorney generals find out there is are people going to a web site, and for all intents and purposes advertising they are going to commit criminal acts. The public is outraged.

A rational person whose job is to enforce the law at this point would be dancing in happy circles, because the criminals are not only advertising their crimes, they're doing it in a single, easily searchable location. This makes his job much easier than it was before.

So what does this person do in order to score political points with the outraged public? Arrest all these people in sting operations? No. He gets the site shut down. Out of sight, out of mind. And the public is _happy_ about that.

For the life of me I can't understand why people do the things they do and feel justified about it. Prostitution is either so bad that it should be illegal and those laws _enforced_ , or it shouldn't be illegal at all because all that does is create problems. There is no middle ground here.

</comment><comment><USER13> no, its just located here now: <http://newyork.craigslist.org/thp/>

</comment><comment><USER9> In case you're wondering: this only affects Craigslist users in the U.S. It's fine here in Canada, for example.

<comment><USER14> I am struggling with the notion of a country that will defend to the death the rights of its citizens to purchase guns and use hateful speech, but simultaneously attack sex with such fundamentalist zeal. I'm experiencing cognitive dissonance.

<comment><USER15> The country defends the right to speech, whether you are hateful with it or not is your choice. The country defends the right of guns to remind the government that the population is armed and willing to stand up to oppressive regimes. Proliferation of sex outside of the family unit, destroys the family unit. Seems straight forward to me.

<comment><USER9> Why does the government care about defending "the family unit?" That's not its job.

<comment><USER16> Part of the US government's stated purpose is to "promote the general welfare" of its people. The real questions are these:

1\. What social effects does the proliferation of extramarital sex have? (I don't buy the flat assertion that it "destroys the family unit" -- and I know some polyamorists who would be downright incensed by that claim -- but it's got to have _some_ effects. Let's see what they are.)

2\. Are those social effects good, bad, or some mixture? To what extent, and for whom?

3\. If there turn out to be bad effects, are they sufficiently bad that some form of government intervention would be worthwhile? If so, what's the least heavy-handed way to intervene that stands a good chance of working?

<comment><USER17> I mean this in the nicest way possible, but that you think these are, in fact, the real questions reflects a peculiar understanding of secular, Western jurisprudence and the (theoretically) liberal Anglo-American and European intellectual heritage from which it arises, or one that is dangerously at odds with the lessons taught by that heritage.

First, prostitution and extramarital sex are not logically related, per se. Yes, plenty of married men purchase the services of prostitutes, but that has never a reason for which the criminalisation of prostitution has been contemplated here. Married men also do plenty of other things at odds with the ideals of a happy, honest and open marriage. Plenty of divorced men and bachelors visit prostitutes. Even if they didn't, the essence of the criminality of prostitution does not lie in the peripheral aspects of the clientele's personal life or social position. It arguably leads to "worse" policymaking outcomes for politicians to sleep with DC escorts, but the reason why it is illegal is not _because_ they are politicians. It's just illegal in general. It may be officially censurable within the legislative profession for that reason (an arrangement involving a particular code of conduct into which the politician entered voluntarily), but not in background law.

Our entire system of judicial thought is reliant on the idea that the state identifies and prosecutes things that are logically related in ways articulated by the applicable statute, and that the evidentiary relationship between the alleged crime and the statute on which the allegation is based is a fairly deductive one. To the extent that it actually functions (another discussion for another day), it would very quickly break down if prosecutorial "inferential" leaps or "strong inductive" claims based on certain statistical generalisations without definitive proof or direct connection were permitted to be made. The reason we prosecute driving while intoxicated is not because the driver is some shade of likely to be an alcoholic, and therefore a mean- spirited jerk (because he's drunk) that offends his family or roommates, thereby detracting from the overall common happiness and public welfare.

The presumption of innocence absent proof of guilt, and the concept of probable cause are both intimately related to this; this is why it is unreasonable, as a matter de jure, to say that a Craigslist ad with an image of a scantily clad woman and a phone number and reference to a "good time" represents an offer of prostitution unless it contains an explicit quid pro quo offer of sex for money. The fact that it is quite likely as a statistical matter should not enter into the picture if we are interested in conserving our liberal legal principles, to the extent that we have them as yet. We don't arrest people who look like the sort of people that deal drugs without establishing conclusively that they have actually done so, and we don't, generally, arrest women on the street who are "probably" street walkers unless they can be witnessed to be making offers of prostitution per se, or, more likely, gotten on some other technicality of ordinance (loitering, accosting pedestrians, etc.). Walking around in a skimpy outfit and looking attentive to passing cars is not in itself illegal based on what you might be up to if you're doing that.

Second, our legal and democratic heritage does not admit the possibility that government is qualified to determine or administer the vagaries of personal life. The idea that the government is going to formulate--and mandate, and enforce!--an idea of a "good" marriage, which presumptively forbids X or Y, is rather abhorrent when considered against the backdrop of centuries of common law and democratic development. The government can grant a divorce petition, dissolving a marriage license that it itself issued, not make you have a good marriage. Furthermore, as you rightly point out, there is at least one identifiable constituency of married people whose concept of marriage explicitly accepts what others might deem "extramarital" sex. These social mores are always a moving goalpost, especially in a more globally connected, flatter world of more numerous subcultures. Trying to take one account of virtue or the good life and promote it to universal institutional imposition through coercive force is a woefully misguided endeavour philosophically and a doomed endeavour practically.

Third: Historically and jurisprudentially, the notion underlying the phraseology, the formulation of "promote the general welfare" is quite different from the one that you have ascribed to it. In principle, the mission to promote the general welfare has principally to do with protecting citizens from foreign invasion and otherwise defending the territorial and political integrity of the country, regulating things that can lead to loss of life or limb, and, more recently, mitigating possible sources of financial peril stemming from legal misrepresentation and/or fraud (e.g. scams, undecipherable financial instruments and investment vehicles, etc.).

The government is not--and has never been--in the role of enforcing or bolstering the subjective, psychological "quality" of interpersonal relationships, or mitigating the emotional harm from ones that fail to meet the happiness threshold of one or more parties. Yes, there is family court, but the state's interest in child custody issues and the terms of divorce stems from a relatively narrow, technical preoccupation with financially equitable outcomes, as they relate to the subsequent quality of life and opportunities of the child and both (ex-)spouses. The courts' role there deals with the material effects of what happens to the actors when the particular family unit does break down, not with the prevention thereof.

There are plenty of other relationships whose failure or compromise can also have deleterious effects: psychologically taxing collegiate or supervisory work relationships, friendships that go south upon the revelation of deceit or betrayal, etc. It's not the government's place to legislate away all conceivably problematic dimensions of human existence, nor particularly feasible from a logistical standpoint.

Getting the government involved in the question of adultery is a slippery slope; why not also police lying (outside the sphere of commercial law and/or tort law)? If extramarital sex is harmful to the family unit and unconducive to the public welfare, why not throw people in prison for it, or worse? Causing people grief or anger, or any other emotion associated with a frowny face is also injurious to the public welfare in the aggregate; it is relatively straightforward to show that a certain population of unhappy people lead to "worse" (that is, less socially appealing) outcomes than happy ones.

Unless you're interested in moving in the direction of despotic theocracies, these are not the the real questions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I used to know Jim Buckmaster, the CEO of CL back in the day in Ann Arbor. He dated my sister for several years.

Any ways Jim is a really smart and together guy, and I would suspect in his heart that he takes a pretty dim view of people who shop for sex. At the same time I know him to be a person of principle and I suspect those principles are some type of Chomskyan libertarianism. BTW I wonder what Chomsky would say w.r.t. this controversy.

Clearly you have two opposing principles. One is free speech, the other is something that most feel is inherently exploitative and should be minimized.

Any ways, I suspect that CL gets more heat because they go against the grain of common corporate culture. Like I said, Jim is a man of principle.

<comment><USER3> Chomskyan libertarianism?

I'm not very familiar with Chomsky, but as I recall he has opposed freedom of speech, freedom of contract (for low skill workers), and favors taking wealth from some and giving to others by force. Wikipedia describes him as a socialist.

That sounds like the exact opposite of libertarianism to me. Could you explain what you mean by the term?

<comment><USER18> Sorry, you are right. I misspoke. He rather has 'anarchist' leanings. He is against "systems of domination without justification".

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G6kf7XM9Nk

Chomsky has a complex position that defies quick labels. I think his analysis of the system is pretty accurate, but, of course I don't really see him as having presented any type of workable solution/alternative. But what brilliant analysis and critique!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This seems a bit petulant to me.

There is real, substantive criticism of how CL handles adult ads independent of grandstanding politicians, hand-wringing moralists, and sensationalist media. These groups are always going to be flinging shit around; why dignify them by pretending to be their victim?

And why refuse to acknowledge the legitimate issues that are raised? CL has said nothing in response to critics who have pointed out that independent research groups have been able to place ads that contradict CL's stated policies, or that relevant authorities have said they've received few to no reports of suspicious activity from CL. Refusing to acknowledge these problems, and instead focusing on the misdeeds or weakest arguments of their most sensational critics, undermines CL's credibility quite a bit.

And if you are going to shut the section down on your own, just do it. You don't get any pity for claiming you've been censored when there's been no actual legal pressure applied. You haven't been censored, you just caved.

</comment><comment><USER20> Why is it if I place a personal ad on match.com and meet a uy for coffee and he turns out to be a salker that I can call LE for help. But if I place a adult ad and charge for my time and companiosnhip I can not get any assistance from LE if I need it. Ironically do you know what they do to the hookers once they sent them to jail. f they go to prison they usualy get raped by correctional offcers and even used for THEIR OWN PROSTITUION RING, as they are state property. We already have prrof that indoor prositution works, RI had a loophole from 1979 til 2009, they never charged anyone with human trafficking and only arrested street hookers in public and when the CL killer killed the girl in Boston he then wentto RI and robbed a women and she called LE reported it and that is why they catch him. LE does ot want cooperateion from hookersor Craiglsit they just want the keep the witch hunt going for their own personal campaign stradegy.

</comment><comment><USER20> Ironically even though Craigslist just about crippled the newspaper industry, these same newspapers have been running adult ads in the personal sections, in every major cities for years, ad how about the good old yelow pages that the escort services use to pay 15,000 a year to appear in. The problem is this, LE is going to keep using CL as an escape goat, while they have no real interest in catching pimps expoiting teens, they want to STALK MIDDLE AGE CONSENTING ADULTS IN PRIVATE, because of their moral witch hunt. We have street hookers in every city, they don't seem to concerned about them. On top of the sex worker being criminalized LE often calls her employer and landlord when they arrest her, its like being the victim of a hate crime, where you hated just because you exisit. We are not given the same sancation and protection under the law as everyne else, and they even wish us harm. Why are we such a threat, it seems if they went after the predators and pimps with the same ZEST that they go after these consenting adults, we might live in a nicer world. Also lets look at LE behavior, follow this newsfeed <http://theproviderpage.com/news/TheProviderPage-News.php>

Here you will see how the chief of police was handing out crack to street hookers and then expoitig them for sex in lue of going to jail and the 2 cops while arresting a women on a online sting, they took pics of her naked with their personal cell phones while she cried and begged to get dressed as they laughed at her. All sex workers are expoited, by their own persona plight, poverty, and how does society really think we will be safer if we become homeless and live on the street, don't you think we would be raped and become a target for violence because we have no shelter/safety. None of these MORAL People who want to save us from ourselves are creating any services or safety for these women. I just wonder why society seems to think its ok to treat a hooker anyway and that she gets what she deserves, she could easily be your mother, sister, aunt or child. Don't be so naive that you think this would never affect someone you know. The internet gave me the abilty to find safer, higher paying clients, that I see on my terms, without needing an agency to give half my money too. I can choose to see just 1 or 2 clients a day and am putting my daugter through college as a single mom. I am also creating <http://theproviderpage.com/cms/> which I am creating to support my peers. Thanks for listening to my rant.

</comment><comment><USER21> People believing that the prostitution issue will be solved through craigslist section shut down, should learn what 5 whys root cause analysis is...

This sounds like first level solution, what about the other ones?

Emotional topic. Difficult (half)-solutions.

</comment><comment><USER20> See us at <http://theproviderpage.com/cms/>

While we oppose society's Moral Witch Hunt against us and laws that criminalize us, we are aware that escort providers must live in the real world. At it's best, that world disrespects and ostracizes us; at it's worst, it seeks to exploit and even harm us.

TheProviderPage.com is a site planned and paid for by a provider to offer a safe harbor from that world for my peers.

Whether your method of running your business includes being a "lot lizard", a "streetwalker", an escort working for a respectable agency, an escort working independently, an exclusive mistress who takes on only one client, or a dominatrix who specifically does not offer "escort" services, you are welcome here and will be treated with the respect often missing in the real world.

We believe adult providers can make the best choices for themselves without interference from law enforcement on the one hand nor do-gooders who want to "help" us against our will on the other hand.

If you need resources and support to run your business, you will find that here. If you choose to leave this business, we seek to provide you information on the best resources that can assist you transition to another lifestyle. We respect each provider's right to choose for herself.

We vehemently oppose all forms of human trafficking and child prostitution. The victims of these crimes deserve our compassion and support; those who exploit others in such a manner deserve severe punishment.

While much of this site is addressed to women, male providers are welcome also; our only criteria for membership is that you are a provider. All are welcome to read and use our site, but membership is for providers only.

Welcome from Bella

This site was commissioned by Bella for her fellow escorts.

Bella has been in the adult industry for over 25 years. She has owned and operated escort agencies and also worked as a independent escort; therefore she has consulted with the finest attorneys available over the past 25 years. Bella keeps up to date on laws and what is going on in the media (see our news feeds) .

Bella's hope is that others can learn from her experience. I hope that other escorts can empower themselves, understand the risks involved and have the tools to make their experiences safer, and for them to be able to find support and fellowship from other escorts. And I hope the escort wanting out of this lifestyle will find some resources here that will help her in her transition back to the main stream of society.

The only requirement for membership is that you are a legit escort with a good reputation that I can verify. We have just started our journey here on TheProviderPage and have many more great ideas coming soon, and we also value your opinion as a escort so please forward your suggestions/comments and we will take them into consideration.

</comment><comment><USER22> _The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly._

—Abraham Lincoln

First, the only question that truly matters: _Cui Bono?_

What industry made ~40% of their revenues from classified listings within the last decade?

What industry has been slyly running hooker ads and profiting off prostitution for decades?

What industry has been anti-Internet from the start?

What industry has been running sensationalist, sexed-up hit-pieces scaring the public about rampant crime on Craigslist for several years?

And more importantly in the grand-scheme of things, from a level way above mere prostitution:

 _What hypocritical industry has been utterly incapable of understanding that the core tenet of online freedom of speech is intimately connected to the availability of online, open forums where anyone can say anything in an anonymous, online public space that is protected under the first amendment?_

Newspapers.

And it's funny because no newspaper editor will ever let what I just said ever see print, as this tempest in a teapot about the world's oldest profession continues to simmer. Remember, it's an election year, so all these AGs who have been turning a blind eye to prostitution for decades now have the perfect political opportunity to play the _morality police_ handed to them on a silver platter:

It has taken years to trend, but the MSM has slowly pumped up a moral crusade around Craigslist. Gee, isn't that convenient for them? Now they just want to hand off the ball to the state AGs. Then the AGs get to grand-stand from their corrupt moral soapboxes, which helps their political base, and the _newspapers get to reclaim ~30% of Craigslist's revenue._ Ahh, the circle of Life, ain't it beautiful!

You don't see Backpage, the _2nd largest site for the exact same adult classified ads_ being targeted at all now do you? Who owns Backpage? Why it's the _Village Voice_ media corp, who has deep pockets, a long history, and many friends in high places.

Craig's biggest personal mistake was not doing what Google had to do a few years ago, what Microsoft learned to do in the 90's during the antitrust trial, and what countless other tech companies insulated in their Silicon Valley tech bubble all have eventually had to do: _send one hundred or more paid lobbyists to DC._

Who has been public enemy #1 of the newspapers and their media conglomerates?

Who has almost single-handedly caused the entire newspaper industry to cave in on itself in just a decade?

 _Craigslist_

What we're seeing here is just business as usual from the Great Houses of yellow journalism.

AND NOW FOR A RANT! :)

/rant

I know a thing or two about a thing or two in this particular niche of the classified industry, since once upon a time long ago I worked a very brief & desperate stint coding at some unnamed company in the adult classified biz. It's not at all what the general public thinks it is. It's a lot more organized, practical and intentional in subtle ways most people don't realize, while the sexy, titillating parts that you see Faux News and CNN play are not nearly as exciting in reality.

I don't pass any judgment on it—it's called the oldest profession for a reason. We're all mammals after all, what's wrong with that? In fact, I think it should be completely legal, across the board, and regulated by the health industry just like in Europe and most of the rest of the world.

Too many Americans are completely stupid in their expectations about what they think would happen if it were legal. It's _exactly_ like with America's idiotic, failed _War on Some Drugs_ and alcohol Prohibition. Make it illegal, no it doesn't stop, since any attempt to legislate the most basic and natural of all human behaviors is futile! Prohibition only makes it worse in fact, as it just empowers organized crime to take over. Who do you think is trafficking little kids for this? Who is keeping the modern day equivalent of female slaves? Who has international shipping networks to even do those kind of logistics? Who is committing 99% of the violence in an industry of "victimless crime"? Who is tying this illegal industry to others, like drug or arms trafficking, in order to capitalize on economies of scale? Not some 12 year old girl from some Asian country. And not John Smith who has been in a sexless marriage for 20 years. And it's not Corner Pimp Moe who still lives with his mother since he just got out of jail for a petty misdemeanor. No, it's the organized criminals and corporations pulling the strings in high places in America who only exist because our gov't has setup a system of (in)justice that _enables_ them to operate.

And a massive amount of our tax dollars are wasted in law enforcement of this industry. There's a massive opportunity cost behind it—just remember, every hooker busted and given the average penalty of a $200 ticket with no jail time is one less robber, murderer, rapist, you name it, who is caught and taken off the streets by the cops. Not to mention that the cops don't really want to enforce prohibition, since they could care less about being the morality police, and they know they have a snowball's chance in hell of stopping basic mammalian reproduction, so they are already doing it half-assed. It's kind of like the military study where they found that 60% of soldiers on the battle fields were intentionally aiming high during Vietnam to miss their human targets—such is the subconscious social fear of hurting other human beings! We need our cops to be effective and trusted by society, not the opposite! So why are we setting up a judicial system that sets the cops up for failure?

And don't even get me started on the Feminist angle on all of this. _I'll just say that I know of nothing else in society than making it illegal that has done more to exploit, injure and permanently disadvantage countless innocent women than the entire legal and social apparatus setup for prohibition._ Most of these women have tough lives, tough backgrounds, they have fallen through the cracks in education and our social system, and they are single moms getting by in a decimated economy. That's not exactly what I picture when I imagine criminals. But here in America we can't treat people at the bottom of our social order in a decent, _Christian_ way. As a society, what is our solution to this so-called problem? _We add another layer of victimization on these innocent women who are already victimized_! America is shameful in how always treats its least well-off citizens. Yes, I blame the hypocritical religious fundies who's modus operandi is to scare folks into the pews on Sundays, and who have apparently forgotten the level of forgiveness and tolerance which Jesus himself showed to prostitutes. Ultimately it's due to America's historic, unchangeable bedrock of Puritan culture. Even though America practically invented _porn_ , culturally, we have a completely backwards view towards human sexuality and behavior, compared to the rest of the modernized world, who laughs at us. _Ooh, the answer, I know, I know, let's criminalize it_!

As for the consequences of legality, no, all marriages and relationships would not be doomed as everyone switches to hookers. In fact, the opposite would probably happen: the price would drop(you have no idea how much of the money is wasted on jumping through hoops to keep safe from organized crime and Johnny Law), and the labor supply would go up a little bit. _But the social stigma would remain, and this is the important part._ Since humans are entirely social creatures, legalization would probably have the completely counter-intuitive effect of making relationships better across society, since if sex is made nearly valueless, rather than equivalent to what a top attorney would bill you per hour, then the social shame aspect is suddenly bumped to the top of the list of concerns. Since you don't have to worry about being associated with illegality, slavery, crime, etc. And we all know that shaming within social groups is the most effective way to alter and control human behavior—even more so than relying on prison or economics to do it. QED.

<comment><USER23> > send one hundred or more paid lobbyists to DC.

With what money? Not only does Craigslist not really have any profitable business interests to protect, but they don't have the money to do that even if they wanted to.

<comment><USER22> Craigslist makes over $100 million a year. And they have just 60 or so employees. And I bet they have dirt cheap fixed costs. _The website hasn't fucking changed in a decade, and it's more popular than ever!_ They're probably the Internet company with the highest profit margins! Craiglist is the fucking showcase example of _Metcalfe's law._

But like bank robbers who foolishly think they wouldn't get caught on the 10th robbery, or a gambler playing _martingale_ double or nothing all night, they fucked up. Craig should have pried open his fat ass wallet and toss millions of pocket change towards lobbying, branding, PR and advertising many, many years ago. Instead, they let their enemies, the media itself, define their brand and PR, and they lost control of the message, the agenda and the way they are presented to the mass public.

But Craig is apparently too hung up on his neo-hippy ideals of keeping Craigslist anti-corporate to realize that if he doesn't sink to the same dirty corporate warfare as the enemy, then they'll stab him in the back eventually. All they need is one good shot, and it's just a matter of time. I don't really get how a privately held $100 million/yr corporation is "anti-corporate." At that point it's just folly and self-delusion, he should have seen this storm cloud brewing miles away and years ago, and prepared for it to hit. Such as when Ebay tried to steal the company years ago. _Too late now—say buh-bye to that $36 million a year in revenues from adult ads!_ Ouch!

 _I'm an unabashed Craiglist hater simply because he completely fucked up and missed the boat and failed us developers by not transforming the most popular and best single Internet site of high signal/noise anonymous contact into the best open mashup API of real-time, localized, semantic data._ And this souped up mashup data API didn't have to be all corporatified either—Craig could have kept it hippy! Like Twitter! CL would only need to lift their pinky finger to instantly defeat the hundreds of millions invested in data mashup startups, Google, FB, AT&T, Ebay, etc who are trying to pin the market which CL dominates. Again, I see the opportunity cost—by CL not chasing change, _we the users of the Internet have now lost more than we've gained from the potential of CL as force for good, community and the overall power of the Internet._ I suppose my idealism is even purer than Craig's. :) At the very least, CL can stop sending C&D orders and DMCA takedowns to small websites scraping their data.

I believe a data API like this would have caused Craigslist to become even bigger and more unstoppable. Craig, Jim and whoever pulls the the strings are lazy, unimaginative fucktards who deserve to be dethroned so we, the Internet, can have a new winner in the next round of _King-of-the-Hill: Winner Takes All Internet Edition._ :)

<comment><USER24> > I'm an unabashed Craiglist hater simply because he completely fucked up and > missed the boat and failed us developers by not transforming the most > popular and best single Internet site of high signal/noise anonymous contact > into the best open mashup API of real-time, localized, semantic data

Not only has CL failed to innovate, it actively goes after and shuts down third parties who do interesting things with CL data. :(

<comment><USER25> Stop whining. It's not your data.

<comment><USER5> Actually, if jbellis posts to CL, some of it _is_ his data. It belongs to the people who post it, not CL. See the terms of use: <http://www.craigslist.org/about/terms.of.use>

Notably section 3, "CONTENT," and the 2nd paragraph of section 14, "PROPRIETARY RIGHTS," in which they explicitly disclaim ownership: "Although craigslist does not claim ownership of content that its users post..."

<comment><USER26> excellent ...

now if only we could go get everyone who posted listings to sign off on allowing us access their data we could build an API in no time.

<comment><USER22> If Craigslist actually stood by their community-centric, "everybody share" principles, rather than wear a fake mask of anti-corporatism over their money- grubbing true face, then Craigslist themselves would put a single checkbox _on every Craigslist_ post form letting the user make that choice. And the default state of that checkbox would be "yes."

Then CL could just offer a bare-bones, REST, read-only firehose API to access those posts. Just like how Twitter does it. This entire project would probably take the developers at CL a month to roll out into prod. Hell, knowing how software shops work, they probably already have 3 private internal versions of it that were shelved by the ignorant, risk-averse management who only fear change and don't know how to tread water in the meandering river of technology and Internet society.

Wild idea for the Techcrunch rumor mill in 2011: it's too bad Twitter doesn't buy or merge with CL, and in absorbing CL, make them be more open and community-centric.

Perhaps CL will see the light and open up an API, as the newspapers get more desperate and turn up the dial on the hate. CL is going to need to show off something, anything to take the spot light off themselves before the wolves rush in now that they're injured & bleeding.

<comment><USER26> Oh you know know for sure that every user would want their data broadcast to 3rd party developers to do what they please with ... the way Facebook has done ... and oh by the way, how is that going for them?

Look, Craigslist doesn't want an api.

Its their software and its that simple

People need to get over it or ... you know ... go build their own classifieds listing service or something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The same newspapers that Craigslist just about crippled have been running ads for yeas,and they where much more expensive, my escort service I use to own in St.Pete times I paid 12.000 a year to keep a 3 line ad up and I also use to pay the yellow pages 15 to 30,000 a year. The internet has giving me the abilty to be indpendent, no more agency drama,and I am able to get better clients, they pay more, I chose the respectful day time guys and only have to see 1 or 2 clients a day and I am also putting my daughter through college. LE is using craigslist as an escpae goat, because they really have no interest in stopping the pimps from exploiting the teenagers, but for some reason they are obsessed with what consenting adults do in private, they go beyond what is legal to arrest these women, and most of their cases would not make it to trail if these women had lawyers, they arrest escorts for just showing up for an appontment, even if they are not able to solicit the women for an illegal act, so they get her for not having a massage license or supsion of prostitution, heck they can't arrest you for suspsion of murder unless they can prove it but its ok to lock up a hooker. They also BULLY the john into snitching and it works because they are no criminals and do not know what to do if detained by police, I bet a drug dealer or gang member wouldn't let LE into bullying confssions out of them. I have bee reading in the news, we have a chief of police handing out crack to street level hooker and exploiting them for sex in lue of going to jail and we have 2 cops while arresting a women during an online sting, took pics of her with their personal sell phones while she was naked and crying and begging to get dress while they laughed at her. these articles are in the newspapers, and happen all the time. It seems if we stalked the predators and pimps with the same ZEST as we d the hooker then we might actually catch some real criminals. But the million dollar question is this, why does the general public believe its ok to treat a hooker any way they want and that she deserves it, what gives anyone the right to HATE us, just because we. exisit. I know LE even calls our employers and landlords after they arrest us, with no cause other than to get us out of their town, do you think we would be safer on the street, where we could become far game to be raped and beaten and we don't want to be regulated so we will have to work in brothels and give the brothel wners most of our money, Back n 2005 I owned a escort service in FL and I was incorpated and paid taxes. Many agencies such as myself are now being harassed and stalked by LE, but seems like if your a cop or governor Spitzer you don't get prosecuted and you can still be on CNN. I just woner who many of MY TAX dollars is LE going to use to STALK ME. Thanks For letting me Rant.

</comment><comment><USER27> Congrats on CL on finally taking the high road without being legally forced to first.

Claiming that it should be okay to do something questionable because everyone else does it is never the right attitude. Prostitution ads should not be right next to ads for cars, even if others do it.

Those that claim how many illegal things would be better if legalized and regulated are naive.

<comment><USER28> The points have been discussed so often elsewhere in this thread, but I just wanted to point out that, for me at least, this is very much the low road.

Bowing down to socio-political pressure without being demanded to, for a service that is very clearly popular and (I believe) ought to be legal is, in my opinion, spineless.

I understand that their heart is in the right place, and I'm very understanding that their belief system may not match my own, so I applaud them for doing what they feel is right... but that is all that I can applaud them for.

<comment><USER27> The problem is prostitution is not victimless crime like most men want to believe.

No-one can possibly believe someone wants to be a prostitute.

Not only are some girls forced into it by pimps and syndicate hooking them on drugs to guarantee their "employment", even if others just enter into it out of desperation for quick cash, once you are down that path it can screw up your life forever.

So yeah, condoning it and promoting it and making it easily available on sites like CL has to be prevented for the better of society over the desire of men to have effortlessly accessible sex.

I consider that taking the high road, thinking of others before yourself. I'm under no delusion that it's going to drop even 1% with CL's listings gone, but it's still the right thing to do.</comment></comment></comment>


Amazon, Netflix, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla to Create Next-Gen Video Format - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/01/amazon-netflix-google-microsoft-mozilla-and-others-partner-to-create-next-gen-video-format/#.t9vxkk:pw9z

<comment><USER2> Would you be willing to bet on the presence of built data reporting so that they can flood your browser and email with suggestions for new movies?

<comment><USER3> Normally Im pretty cynical, but this will be based on their open source VP10 video codec. So you can run a version you modified and compiled yourself if you wish. Besides user tracking belongs in the player, not the codec. :)

<comment><USER2> Good info. I'm perhaps too paranoid.</comment></comment></comment>


What is the physical work environment like at your company? - <AUTHOR>

TypeForm survey: https://christopherogden.typeform.com/to/CyfocZ
Motivation for this survey was that as an introvert I find large open office plans to be a hostile environment, but it's hard to determine the office environment at different companies.
Oh, and you can view survey results at https://christopherogden.typeform.com/report/CyfocZ/jDZN <comment><USER2> Checkout the masschallenge office in 3d which was recently added to Google Maps! [http://goo.gl/6TEhG9](http://goo.gl/6TEhG9)

<comment><USER3> Ugh! Wouldn't want to work there if I needed to concentrate on code. Would be OK if the day is spent talking though.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Flutter or Android API better for getting into mobile development? - <AUTHOR> I've decided to learn mobile app development, both for making a couple apps that I myself need, and for picking up a skill that can be useful in the coming years if my life plans change.  So I'm developing an Android app now, using Flutter, which is not really as smooth as I'd like it to be because I am learning Dart as I go and the API is not very pleasant (e.g. you need 3 constructors to put some text in a text field).  I'd much rather try using Clojure or Kawa.  But watching Fuchsia happen, and the fact that Flutter seems to be the preferred UI toolkit there, I feel like Flutter is a better investment if I ever decide to go professional in the coming years.  Not only, but it's portable to iOS, which is yet another benefit.
So, what do you think is a better choice in this situation for me, and for anybody else like me starting out with mobile development but does not need to do that professionally right away?
Thanks a lot in advance! <comment><USER2> I recommend you to go with Android(kotlin) development and Swift for iOS.

Here are the pros:

\- As a profesional app developer you want to know the native patterns better, so you can take out the most from the platform.

\- You won't rely on third party components as much.

\- You'll have immediate access to the latests apis as they are released in the native framework.

\- Faster testing, better debugging experience.

\- Easier integration with CI tools or automated test tools.

\- Shorter build times.

\- Writing in two languages has also it's advantages, you can learn things from Swift 4 that you might love.

Cons:

\- You'll have to write two applications.

There are things that will be fundamentally different in both platforms and you won't be able to build once and release in both platforms anyway. (Android instant App is the first that comes to my mind)

So in my opinion you should start with native development first, later you can change your mind, and go to Flutter but you'll be able to leverage your experience to build your own plugins, and create really advance stuff.

Otherwise you'll be always limited. IMHO.

<comment><USER3> While I concur with everything you mentioned I find the debugging expierience with flutter ahead of the native approaches. Especially state keeping hot reloads are very usefull.

Personally I choose flutter over kotlin/swift simply because it did "click" with me, while the native apis only confused. But I know that my (simple) app is 80% design, flows, user research, ideas and marketing and only 20% is code.

If it ever happens that I reach the limits of flutter, I need to redo 20% of my work. But since I am an absolute beginner at app development, and consistently learn new approaches, I need to rewrite my old code one way or another. At the moment flutter enables me to get the other 80% of work done much faster than native approaches.

So maybe think about what you want to learn... To code, or to make apps. Because these are different things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There was a thread the other day on the FlutterDev subreddit about the drawbacks of using Flutter:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/FlutterDev/comments/8lvi4b/what_can...](https://www.reddit.com/r/FlutterDev/comments/8lvi4b/what_cant_flutter_do_limitations/)

Also, we really don't know yet what Google's plans with Fuchsia are. However, I personally am using Flutter because I don't really like the Android framework, although the Jetpack release made things a bit better. Flutter does seem to have a lot of momentum behind it.

Since you mentioned Clojure, I think you can do some React Native stuff with that: [http://cljsrn.org/](http://cljsrn.org/) Might want to try that.</comment>


6 Women Accuse Tech VC Justin Caldbeck of Sexual Assault and Harassment - <AUTHOR> http://observer.com/2017/06/justin-caldbeck-binary-capital-sexual-assault-harssment/ <comment><USER2> Really glad to see people like this getting called out. Dealing with sexual harassment/assault from someone in power is the last thing you want as a female founder - you have a million other things you need to do to keep your startup afloat, and you don't want to rock the boat if it affects your likelihood of being funded. Feels like the valley is slowly but surely changing.

And yes, I recognize that this hasn't been "proven", but really what's the chance than there's a shadowy cabal of women who start companies in order to target individual VCs. These women have little to gain from this and everything to lose. Occams razor is that he's at the very least doing something that's inappropriate.

<comment><USER3> The sad part to me is that this is just the part of the iceberg that is visible above the surface.

I've heard stories from several female founders/VC's (not naming names or specific details to protect anonymity) who have experienced repeated unwelcome advances even after it was made clear they had a significant other. That's not as egregious as groping (one of the accusations in this article), but that's still sexual harassment by the letter of the law and slimy as hell every other way.

Another common theme I noticed is when the man in question stays in the gray area where individual incidents aren't clearly over the line and might not qualify legally as sexual harassment, but in context and in aggregate it's clear why a woman would feel very uncomfortable. How do you confront something like that when they can just question your perception of reality?

In all but one case, the women decided against confrontation because the man was in a much more powerful position (such as a general partner of a VC fund), and the women were afraid of retribution and risking killing their careers by taking a principled stand. They all wished they could do more, but decided they didn't want to be martyrs. That's a bad position to be in.

I think it's damning of the industry that these women have accepted silence on the matter as part of the burden of being a woman and pursuing this line of work. Granted I'm looking at this with N < 10, but everyone I've talked to shares the sentiment that it's a pattern, not a coincidence.

I'm hopeful that everything going on around Uber will move the needle enough that more people are willing to come forward.

<comment><USER4> > repeated unwelcome advances even after it was made clear they had a > significant other

Repeated unwelcome advances are not OK even if the person is single.

<comment><USER5> I am the very close relative of two women in tech. One of my relatives was on the receiving end of repeated, unwanted advances over the last several months, none of which were reported to HR because she didn't want to destroy her career at the company.

Last weekend she received an unsolicited, nearly naked photo from the same male co-worker. Needless to say, he is no longer at the company.

This is sad on two counts. First, it's sad that my relative felt she couldn't report because she thought it would harm her career. It sickens me to say this, but maybe she was right. Maybe it would have harmed her career.

Second, and I've seen this before, she had to endure further harassment until he really escalated so she could report something significant enough that she felt it wouldn't harm her credibility.

Though we're discussing this through the lens of the tech industry, the most horrifying thing of all is that this isn't even a problem that's unique to tech.

It's pervasive. Still.

<comment><USER6> Does sending dick-pics or beefcake shots actually work? Especially if you keep getting rejection?

What prompts this kind of mentality?

<comment><USER7> It was just the other day that that I read in the local news about a woman that was arrested for sending breast pictures to an ex, sending death threats to his new girlfriend, and stalking him from his home to work.

Stalking seems to be some form of obsessive behavior, and I suspect that sending pictures is an early stage of such behavior. It also describe a cure for it, ie similar cures we have when obsessive behavior makes someone a criminal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What follows is a statement that Caldbeck provided to Axios this afternoon.

"The past 24 hours have been the darkest of my life. I have made many mistakes over the course of my career, some of which were brought to light this week. To say I'm sorry about my behavior is a categorical understatement. Still, I need to say it: I am so, so sorry.

I direct my apology first to those women who I've made feel uncomfortable in any way, at any time - but also to the greater tech ecosystem, a community that I have utterly failed.

The power dynamic that exists in venture capital is despicably unfair. The gap of influence between male venture capitalists and female entrepreneurs is frightening and I hate that my behavior played a role in perpetrating a gender-hostile environment. It is outrageous and unethical for any person to leverage a position of power in exchange for sexual gain, it is clear to me now that that is exactly what I've done.

I am deeply ashamed of my lack of self-awareness. I am grateful to Niniane, Susan, Leiti, and the other women who spoke up for providing me with a sobering look into my own character and behavior that I can no longer ignore. The dynamic of this industry makes it hard to speak up, but this is the type of action that leads to progress and change, starting with me.

I will be taking an indefinite leave of absence from Binary Capital, the firm I co-founded in 2014. I will be seeking professional counseling as I take steps to reflect on my behavior with and attitude towards women. I will find ways to learn from this difficult experience - and to help drive necessary changes in the broader venture community.

The Binary team will also be taking measures to ensure that the firm is a safe place for founders of all backgrounds to find the support and resources they need to change the world, without abuse of power or mistreatment of any person.

I owe a heartfelt apology to my family, my investors, my portfolio, and the team at Binary, who have been completely blindsided and in no way deserve the pain I've caused. But most of all I apologize again to those who I've hurt during the course of my career - and for the damage I've done to the industry I care so deeply about."

[https://www.axios.com/justin-caldbeck-takes-indefinite- leave...](https://www.axios.com/justin-caldbeck-takes-indefinite-leave-of- absence-from-binary-capital-2446988189.html)

<comment><USER9> Compare with his firm's statement:

 _Binary issued a statement that said the notion Mr. Caldbeck had "engaged in improper behavior with female entrepreneurs" was "false." Binary said that while The Information had "found a few examples which show that Justin has in the past occasionally dated or flirted with women he met in a professional capacity, let's be clear: there is no evidence that Justin did anything illegal and there is no evidence that any of his investing decisions were affected by his social interest._

<comment><USER10> This statement is much more in line with Caldbeck's initial statement:

> Obviously, I am deeply disturbed by these allegations. While significant > context is missing from the incidents reported by The Information, I deeply > regret ever causing anyone to feel uncomfortable. The fact is that I have > been privileged to have worked with female entrepreneurs throughout my > career and I sincerely apologize to anyone who I made uncomfortable by my > actions. There's no denying this is an issue in the venture community, and I > hate that my behavior has contributed to it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Binary released an updated statement in light of this new apology and indefinite leave.

<comment><USER9> Caldbeck appears to have contradicted the firm's claim, harming their own credibility.

<comment><USER11> The firm claims he didn't do anything illegal.

He hasn't copped up to the assaults, and since they were not employees, the texts may not necessarily have been illegal.

Not entirely contradictory.

<comment><USER9> Their statement says that any claims or reports that Caldbeck did anything "inappropriate" with women were "false". That ship sailed with Caldbeck's most recent statement.

<comment><USER11> Oh! Sorry - I missed that part at the beginning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This guy had to do SO MUCH bad shit before he was finally called out and I think it speaks to a major problem with Silicon Valley.

I've been working with startups since 2011 and in that time I've seen:

-A Head of HR who gave promotions to his employees based on sexual favors given. This person happened to be friends with the CEO and employees got in trouble for reporting him.

-A founder and dealing with the above situation and doing an "investigation" that ended with nothing.

-The same founder referring the employees who were fired to their friends dumpster fire of a company so they could get a referral bonus.

-A founder I worked with belittled women, all of their female developers left after a few months. I wrote a glassdoor review and was repeatedly threatened by said founder.

-Worked with a founder who has repeatedly been accused of sexual harassment to the point where there are multiple articles about it. Same founder hooked up with multiple younger female employees while on coke in another country on a company trip. During a round of layoffs, the women saved were the women sleeping with executives (there were 4!!!). Still CEO obv.

-Finally, at larger companies with multiple younger founders I've seen wayyyy too many situations where male boss puts female employee in awkward situations, whether its an arm around them in the hot tub or extreme extra attention over male employees.

Each time I thought about pointing out this behavior, there was some sort of threat/warning about shutting up and letting it happen, often followed by actual legal threats. Watch who you work with...

<comment><USER13> People don't know what an absolute greedy cesspool silicon valley is. It's money. It's human nature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> At the risk of sounding like I'm defending the guy (which I'm not), do we have a comprehensive definition of "Sexual Assault and Harassement" ? Because in some places (northern europe for example) these terms have very volatile definitions which allows pretty much anything to fall under the "rape" category. I totally understand that repeatedly violating somebody's physical safe space is a form a sexual assault (grabbing someone's butt etc) but I'm not sure if bad jokes and misplaced remarks (however annoying) qualify as such. (Not trying to start a war here, I'm geniunly asking).

<comment><USER15> In the USA, "sexual harassment" is generally defined as behavior or words of a sexual nature that make a person feel uncomfortable. Examples could range from an extreme of physical assault or offering a quid-pro-quo to keep ones job or get a promotion, all the way to telling lewd jokes or stories within earshot of a third party, or making comments or compliments about someone's dress or appearance (even telling a co-worker "you look lovely today" every morning).

<comment><USER16> In Italy we comment and compliment (or criticise) each other's attire regularly. It's widely known (for example) that I abhor exposed feet and will therefore call out and/or criticize sandals, flip-flops, or peep-toe shoes. Female workers do this to make workers, male workers do this to female workers. We successfully share same-sex toilets if the need arises. The regimented gender-divided situation the US seems to subtend is utterly alien to me and seems to be far more awkward than you realize.

<comment><USER17> Don't let these silicon valley stories fool you. Blame extremists and people who exploit gender relations for money. Most americans are decent people who do the exact type of behavior you mention, and its not a problem.

Big money leads to terrible behavior due to power differences. Men AND Women willing to take advantage of less powerful people. I have a female friend who was sexually harrassed by a female VC, and again the same dynamics played out. Its not about gender but primal human desires and power.

<comment><USER16> I'm amused by the the apparent controversy of my original post (as measured by the fairly broad swings in net upvotes/downvotes). Apparently the apparent common sense I voiced therein doesn't gel with the silent majority quite as much as I'd be comfortable with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If someone is accused of sexual assault, a police report should be filed. If he's hitting on women in inappropriate and aggressive ways, then he deserves to be villified but without details it's hard to understand what he did.

I lost my job and got involved in a complex legal matter trying to defend girls from a predatory person. Most people simply do not care, and will avoid getting involved at all costs.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Reid Hoffman wrote an essay prompted by this, calling for building an "industry-wide HR function" for VC:

[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/human-rights-women- entreprene...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/human-rights-women- entrepreneurs-reid-hoffman)

<comment><USER19> Is that like some sort of corporate police? That's actually not a bad idea. Like every sort of harassment claim goes to an independent agency to be evaluated and investigated. Any business who wants credibility with their employees pays some dues to that agency and agrees to abide their decisions.

<comment><USER20> Almost like, the police?

The law should be handling sexual harassment. The reasons why we have these issues with companies is because there's a conflict of interest. The police are a third party and have no interest in the success/failure of the company, ideally.

<comment><USER21> > The law should be handling sexual harassment.

I think people on both sides of this issue would love it if the law showed itself capable of handling sexual harassment cases. Unfortunately we have way too much evidence that that just isn't the case. The obvious example that comes to mind is Brock Turner getting three months, and that's in the best case where someone is actually convicted. Far too often it never gets to that point, not because the harassment/assault didn't occur, but because the legal system is so utterly shit at handling it. The 'outragism' that so many people decry only exists in the first place because every system that is supposed to prevent or punish these acts has failed so completely.

<comment><USER20> And we have even MORE evidence that companies ALWAYS mishandle these cases with BLATANT conflicts of interest.

You're basically arguing that companies should become their own units of law enforcement with their own punishments as they see fit, with no oversight. That is clearly not going to work. It clearly hasn't.

If the law is unfair, we have the power to change that law. Exceptions always exist but we can not make laws on exceptions. Meanwhile companies continue to allow harassment on a daily basis, Look at Fox News. Multiple cases. Imagine in other corporations?

<comment><USER21> I'm arguing nothing of the sort. While it probably feels good to strawman everyone who disagrees with you, it certainly isn't helping you persuade anyone, nor is it allowing you to learn from other perspectives.

While we may theoretically have the power to change the way law enforcement works on these issues, doing so would be dramatically more difficult than making marginal improvements within the industry itself. We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

<comment><USER20> Please do without the smug BS first paragraph next time. Try forming a real argument instead. Thanks.

Industry has never gotten this right. How long until we finally see that the company trying to avoid bad PR and make money doesn't have conflicts of interest with these victims?

I've seen too many companies turn blind eyes to terrible workplace environments because the perpetrator "makes too many sales." or is "too important." It's always going to be a conflict of interest.

My advice to anyone is: collect evidence, quit, and file a lawsuit. Any other internal method will lead to even more abuse and fear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The apology is well crafted - Pulitzer Prize material but it doesn't seem connected to reality. Maybe it's even a little over the top; it's hard to believe that someone who could behave like this could experience such profound feelings of remorse. It sounds like he is sorry for being caught.

<comment><USER16> This can be leveled at pretty much any coherent, cogent apology issued after a misdeed has been detected. I'm not saying you're wrong, but some risk of hypocrisy is always inherent in the act of apologising. That's why in the main we're wary of them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> In these situations how are things actually proved? Is it just a "he said, she said" situation? In any case, it's a bold move to go on record, though I'm curious what difference it actually makes.

EDIT: Ah, it seems going on record is necessary to actually bring charges to someone.

<comment><USER24> In this case it's more of a "he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said".

<comment><USER25> When it involves rich or powerful people, the ability to get many she-said's becomes easier.

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but due process exists for a reason. We should reserve judgement until the investigation progresses further.

<comment><USER26> I am one of the three women who went on the record: Niniane Wang. I'm one of the "she-said"s.

I have nothing to gain from this. I am not suing. I'm founder & CEO of a Greylock-funded startup. Thankfully Greylock has come out in full support, but I didn't know that beforehand and was very nervous when I decided to do the article. The only way that any reporter would agree to publish was if I used my real name. I knew Justin was continuing to harass women, and this was the only way to stop him.

sillysaurus3, you may be thinking of cases where women go to accuse a "rich or powerful" person and are trying to get something out of it. I had nothing to gain and a lot to lose.

<comment><USER27> I think you're pretty courageous, much more than I am, as the potential backlash could result in your startup failing.

<comment><USER28> Would you rather invest in a start-up led by a non-courageous founder?

<comment><USER27> You need courage to found a startup, but I don't think you always need courage to make a profitable business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is disgusting, pathetic, and predatory.

It also has a long-term chilling effect on women in technology and entrepreneurship.

I am surprised by the lack of outrage over this behavior.

<comment><USER30> At the moment it's allegations. The outrage should come after evidence is uncovered.

Not that it will matter in the end. Recent events have shown that you can flat out admit to drugging women in order to have sex with them and still be acquitted if you have adequate stature and fame. (Ok, I should be more fair. A mistrial is not an acquittal.)

<comment><USER31> The Axios article ([https://www.axios.com/pro- rata-2446752020.html](https://www.axios.com/pro-rata-2446752020.html)) details a long history of sketchy behavior. In addition to the three accusers:

\- While at lightspeed, accusations from a female founder at a portfolio company was serious enough that the _" situation rose to the broader board level, with the ultimate resolution resulting in non-disclosure agreements on all sides."_

\- While at Bain Ventures, a female founder accused Justin of inviting him over to his hotel room to "finish the conversation" even knowing she had a BF (not that being single would make it at all appropriate).

\- Two other female founders with similar stories that don't want to go on the record

I also think it's worthy to note that all his (public) accusers are asian, as is his wife.

Occam's razer...

<comment><USER32> Even more relevant: [https://www.axios.com/justin-caldbeck-takes-indefinite- leave...](https://www.axios.com/justin-caldbeck-takes-indefinite-leave-of- absence-from-binary-capital-2446988189.html)

Caldbeck has apologized, taken leave, and did not contest any of the claims.

<comment><USER30> None of which was yet true when I posted. Now is the time for outrage, as evidence has been presented (In the form of confession).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This article is a bit outdated. Caldbeck has since published a second statement and stepped down from the firm:

[https://www.recode.net/2017/6/23/15865422/justin-caldbeck- le...](https://www.recode.net/2017/6/23/15865422/justin-caldbeck-leave- absence-sexual-harassment-binary-capital-investment-firm)

</comment><comment><USER34> I really wish other founders would name and shame more, even if anonymously, but with examples. For most of the female founders who face these, there is no resource to turn to, to know who to avoid.

<comment><USER35> Honestly, it wouldn't make a difference.

Some VCs are sleazy, but their money's still green. I know with certainty of at least two firms with predatory/creepy partners, but that wouldn't stop me from including them in a round.

This behaviour is inappropriate, but it's not nearly as bad as what we learn to fend off at the average final club/frat party.

<comment><USER36> > their money's still green

VCs do not invest their own money. Instead they invest money of their limited partners.

If limited partners learn that their investments are used to fund VC's love life - they would be furious and likely to withdraw their money.

<comment><USER37> Not if it provides good returns. People still own stock in Phillip Morris.

<comment><USER36> Why would chasing love affairs provide good returns on investment?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I met Justin Calback one week before the news exploded. I was so shocked, even though I have not (yet?) had awkward experience with Justin (he has actually has been pretty helpful).

Throughout my work on both sides of the table, I've been lucky to have met many very helpful and respected mentors/peers, however, this "risk of networking for female" has never been strange. It started with this: I reached out to someone for advice/business, meetings went great and constructive, a couple of emails and coffee, before I got excited about having a great connection, they may ask for a drink. At first, I was confused but agreed, wondering if this is the "valley/American culture" that I should get used to, then things unexpectedly turned awkward even if I tried to keep the conversations professional. Eventually, I don't know how to maintain this connection.

Now that I've learned to "keep things professional", but compared to my male friends' networking experience, I still haven't figured out the best boundary to set. Does "being professional" mean that I can't have personal talks with male professionals? If a guy can be both professional connection and personal friend with another guy, why can't I? I thought that only Asian people mix business and personal connections (given how popular wechat has been used as a "virtual business card" in China), turns out that in US, it's not that different: you see male investors get drinks to catch up or meet new friends, afterwards they become good business partners.

I believe this is not the first time a female talk about this. Many people's reaction may be: oh she must have given some hint that caused misunderstanding, or, when a guy does that, just stay away from him.

Hey, what if an attractive lady got into this uncomfortable situation from 1/3 of her networking?

I'm not here to complain. I'm sincerely hoping to hear some advice on how to best handle this networking difficulty, because as far as I know, I'm not alone.

</comment><comment><USER39> "Prominent" seems like a stretch. Never heard of him.

</comment><comment><USER40> It's so hard to imagine how this kind of thing goes on. I've worked in small and large companies in Australia and (in those places) nobody could get away with messing with female staff.

So it drives me crazy to hear people getting away with it. It makes the world look majority bad - instead of minority bad.

</comment><comment><USER41> As someone who had 3 male teachers in middle and high school fired because of sexual commments I'm still not sure how to respond to stuff like this. I'm always concerned how someones carrier might be altered considering someone could be lying.

<comment><USER42> Well if you see his statement, they weren't lying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> The show Halt and Catch Fire dealt with this problem in the VC industry. It's been going on awhile and is certainly not limited to Caldbeck.

</comment><comment><USER44> Binary Capital is a sleazy VC, no ifs ands or buts about it.

The valley is really small, and I've heard horrific stories of what this firm has done to their employees and founders. This includes Jonathon Teo as well.

This really is just the tip of the iceberg for Binary Capital. I wouldn't take any investments from them ever.

<comment><USER45> You really need to back up your assertions with concrete examples. Or you'll just be ignored.

<comment><USER44> I understand, and being ignored is okay. If someone affected by them sees this, they may feel empowered to step forward. I'd feel wrong putting names, situations, etc. out there, but the fact of the matter is, this isn't the end of this drama.

<comment><USER46> >"I'd feel wrong putting names, situations, etc. out there"

Isn't that what you just did with Jonathon Teo though?

<comment><USER44> I mean of the victims...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> V-eHGsd_ from the pando article this references:

> We are now in a post-Susan Fowler world,

I think I know what the author was trying to say, but that's a really weird way to say it. Susan is most definitely still alive and well. Susan wasn't an event, like 9/11\. she is a woman with a lot of courage who wrote about a series of terrible things that happened to her.

<comment><USER47> By putting the word "post-" in front of something, it makes the author sound smart. That's why they do it.

<comment><USER48> I honestly think this is the real thought process behind things like these, even though it sounds a little cheeky.

<comment><USER49> They said on _hacker_ news.

Personally I don't really see the problem. If you want to argue for a different state of things after some event, "post" seem like the correct word. Just like you would say "post war period". You might of course think that the statement itself is pretentious. But at least they argue their case, i.e the importance of her actions, in the article.

<comment> V-eHGsd_ right. I don't think it's pretentious per-se, I just think it's really odd, like from a literary, use-of-the-english-language perspective.

anyway, I just saw on the news that the serial-assaulter resigned, or has decided to take a travis (a leave of absence followed by a resignation), so that's a good thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> One of the girls interviewed on Startup Podcast mentioned that a VC propositioned her; like these girls she was Asian. I wonder if this guy is the same alleged pervert?

<comment><USER51> All of his victims are Asian in this case.

<comment><USER31> As is his wife.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> _is the last thing you want as a founder_

<comment><USER53> Because men founders deal with sexual harassment (that they don't cause to others) often?

<comment><USER54> That is not the point. There are two ways to view the problem: it is either a women's problem, or a people problem that dissproportionantly affects women. By framing it as a womens problem, you are turning it into an issue of identity politics, with all the pros and cons that come with it. (eg, stronger solidarity from the in-group, at the expanse of alienating the out-group, as well as the growing backlash to identity politics in general.)

Also, even if relativly rare, we do not want to needlessly ignore male victims.

<comment><USER55> Speaking of one group is not ignoring the other. Nobody said that sexual harassment against men is okay. It's okay to recognize that social norms affect the genders asymmetrically and structure language around that.

<comment><USER56> Engaging in identity politics opens up pandora's box :).

Men have a more difficult time obtaining social, emotional and physical intimacy with other people (in both romantic and platonic contexts). For the purely romantic context, there is a huge disparity in the required effort to obtain intimacy in a romantic relationship.

Women can obtain intimacy and have a very successful romantic life without making any advances at all. A man will have a very unsuccessful romantic life if he never makes any advances.

Society fails men on the social/physical/emotional intimacy front.

These are natural, primal needs have huge consequences on happiness. This lack of intimacy naturally causes men to seek intimacy in sometimes inappropriate contexts and situations.

Since a large cause of the behavior is the failing of society, it may be prudent to give higher leniency to men for these situations. The intimacy gap should at least be acknowledged whenever identity politics are brought up in these situations.

<comment><USER57> > A man will have a very unsuccessful romantic life if he never makes any > advances.

#NotAllMen But seriously. I'd like to talk more about this in a different setting. This sentiment rang true for me before I got out of high school. After that, it mattered much less.

> Society fails men on the social/physical/emotional intimacy front.

We failed ourselves. This article rang all too true. [https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/megasahd-the- lac...](https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/megasahd-the-lack-of- gentle-platonic-touch-in-mens-lives-is-a-killer/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Silicon Valley is toxic until sexism, agism, racism, and homophobia are largely eliminated. Only then will it be a model for the world tech hubs to follow.

<comment><USER59> Out of curiosity (I've never been to Silicon Valley, let alone worked there), are other tech hubs, or even other industries, that much better?

<comment><USER60> No. Honestly Silicon Valley is heavily a "social club" where people of the same type group together just like high school, because many of them never grew out of highschool.

Diversity is a joke to be honest.

Go to any company, any single company, especially the ones that tout "diversity" it's all the same individual with the same "thought processes" with no actual diversity.

Many hire people who think the same exact way re-skinned or same-gendered.

One company that is about a block away that touts diversity is all liberal ideologues that spout the most racist and deflating things about everything. It's a very toxic environment for anyone who doesn't align with their ideology or beliefs. All of the individuals in the group have the same style. Can never tell them apart. All the same race. Yet on their twitter, jobs, facebook and even here they tout "Diversity! Friendly Co-Workers!"

I've seen more diversity in companies that don't care about diversity or tout diversity.

Sexual harassment and harassment happens more often at these companies, people who are being harassed and bullied about different things don't speak up. Most of the time it isn't women.

I've been bullied by women before because a candidate wasn't female. I've been bullied by men before because a candidate was female or looked weak (physically). I've heard people bully for stutters, skin color, age, race, gender, everything.

I don't care about that. I care about two things: Do you lift others up despite differences while resolving conflicts, and can you get the job done? Following these two, I've gutted these toxic behaviors (bullying, antagonistic, sexual harassment) from multiple companies and it's refreshing.

It's completely out of control to be honest, it's becoming very toxic and demeaning toward specific races and genders (not just men).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Binary Capital: You either get it or you don't

</comment><comment><USER62> I wish we treated all people that harass others and make other people feel uncomfortable or unsafe this way.

Sexual harassment is just the tip of the iceberg. There are a lot of behaviors that need correcting. Especially in men.

</comment><comment><USER63> "While significant context is missing from the incidents reported by The Information, I deeply regret ever causing anyone to feel uncomfortable."

I wonder what kind of significant context was missing? They asked for it?

/sarcasm

<comment><USER64> Apologising. A classic mistake. What's possibly just a display of good will is going to get abused as admission of guilt.

<comment><USER63> This apology translates to:

"I think they're full of shit, but I apologize anyway"

<comment><USER31> No, thats not at all how his apology translates.

This is his statement in full:

 _Obviously, I am deeply disturbed by these allegations. While significant context is missing from the incidents reported by The Information, I deeply regret ever causing anyone to feel uncomfortable. The fact is that I have been privileged to have worked with female entrepreneurs throughout my career and I sincerely apologize to anyone who I made uncomfortable by my actions. There's no denying this is an issue in the venture community, and I hate that my behavior has contributed to it._

How do you get "I think they're full of shit" out of that? This reads to me like a tacit admission that if anything else, his behavior is inappropriate and sketchy by any conventional sense. Appropriate _and_ professional behavior does not need "significant context" to back it up.

<comment><USER32> He's made a larger statement since, including:

 _" I have made many mistakes over the course of my career, some of which were brought to light this week. To say I'm sorry about my behavior is a categorical understatement. Still, I need to say it: I am so, so sorry." ... "I will be seeking professional counseling as I take steps to reflect on my behavior with and attitude towards women."_

That's about as far as a person can go without making an admissible confession, and seems to clear up basically all doubt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Serious question, does free speech apply in these situations? You have the unalienable right to speak your mind and some people may be offended but that is not illegal. I totally understand if you are employed by someone you can't easily get away if you are made uncomfortable but this is entirely a voluntary situation.

Also, if you really think about it making something that makes someone uncomfortable illegal is weird. So by the same logic I should be able to sue my employer if he farts too much or is annoying in general?

<comment><USER66> The canonical example of the limits of free speech: You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater.

Similarly, you can't run toward someone screaming, pull back like you're going to throw a punch, then claim innocence when charged with assault. There are numerous court cases that draw various lines. Courts have recognized people sometimes say "I'll kill you" but without any actual intent. They also recognize sometimes threats are veiled and spoken in coded language to give the superficial appearance of acceptability... but the threats are just as real as pulling back in a punching motion.

Much sexual harassment falls into the latter category. Rarely to abusers (male or female) come right out and say "sleep with me or you're fired / I'll tank your funding round / I'll call your loan", though that does happen. By far the most common case is subtle suggestions or inferences that things will be easier for you if you go along with it.

In general it is best to avoid anything that appears romantic whenever there is a power imbalance. As a VC, you shouldn't be hitting on founders. If you think there is mutual attraction there then send that person to a friend at a different VC or wait for the funding rounds to close and assign the company to a different partner. Even then it is risky - the target of your affection may feel like they need to play along or you'll start bad-mouthing them and it will crush their business. When the target of your affection says "Sorry, I have a partner / boyfriend / girlfriend" it is a very clear signal they are not interested.

Even better advice is: don't. There is a wide pool of potential partners. Why are you so desperate to find a pickup among your founders / subordinates? Hint: usually because you're taking advantage of them! In this case the most likely explanation is the guy wanted to have some affairs and thought hooking up with founders would be an easy score. What those women thought or felt was entirely beneath his notice.

<comment><USER67> [Responding to your comment in isolation.]

As you're talking about legal things I feel a degree more pedantry is needed. You _can_ yell "fire!" but not without an expectation of subsequent deleterious consequences. You have the freedom to speak, you don't have the freedom from consequences of that speech.

>When the target of your affection says "Sorry, I have a partner / boyfriend / girlfriend" it is a very clear signal they are not interested. //

I'd say that is "somewhat clear"; it's still relying on implicit communication. Far better IMO would be "I'm not interested in a romantic/intimate/sexual relationship with you.". Just saying you have a partner is not as clear; maybe your'e the sort that hops around, or has an open relationship or is turned on by infidelity; if a person thinks you're flirting with them but they mention a current sexual partner you might imagine that you're just being warned to keep things clandestine or being told to compete.

>most likely explanation //

I imagine the most likely explanation was that he was attracted to them, they mirrored his attraction and it went on from there without any thought from him that they were doing it in order to win/not_lose business positioning.

<comment><USER68> > _I 'd say that is "somewhat clear"; it's still relying on implicit > communication. Far better IMO would be "I'm not interested in a > romantic/intimate/sexual relationship with you.". Just saying you have a > partner is not as clear; maybe your'e the sort that hops around, or has an > open relationship or is turned on by infidelity; if a person thinks you're > flirting with them but they mention a current sexual partner you might > imagine that you're just being warned to keep things clandestine or being > told to compete._

If you hit on someone, and they respond "I have a boyfriend" full stop, then unless they're taking their clothes off as they say it, there is _zero_ chance that they mean _anything_ but "I am not interested in your advances."

And, frankly, there's no reason to tell yourself otherwise unless you're planning on sexually harassing that person.</comment></comment></comment></comment>