ISTM, CL realised that trying to police a service that virtually no legitimate person had been using anymore would have been huge waste of time so they shut it down instead.
This is another thing that makes me feel uneasy. Who get’s to decide what “legitimate” people do on their own time? The government? That’s not a world I want to live in.
They’re targeting scum like Carl Ferrer, not your average Jack or Jill.
Yep. From the Craigslist prohibited items list:
[quote]
Here is a partial list of goods, services, and content prohibited on craigslist:
[ul]
[li]weapons; firearms/guns and components; BB/pellet, stun, and spear guns; etc[/li][li]ammunition, clips, cartridges, reloading materials, gunpowder, fireworks, explosives[/ul][/li][/quote]
It’s literally the first thing on the prohibited list.
That’s some convoluted logic right there. I said this:
“Nothing has changed due to that bill regarding who can and can’t meet through personal ads. You can no longer meet through Craigslist because they decided to take their personals section offline.”
So my statement is untrue because you can no longer go to CL for personals when I said “you can no longer meet through Craigslist because they decided to take their personals section offline” which followed that the bill did not change who can and can’t meet on personal ads? Quote me in full and tell me with a straight face that I was wrong. It was very obvious that I was talking about what the bill did or didn’t restrict. Eh, never mind. I’m pretty sure what “semantics” you really do want to get caught up in.
Tell me which part of what I said and I’ll be happy to tell you what the point of it was.
Well, if you want to decriminalize prostitution, I’ll sign the petition. That’s not happening any time soon, is it?
Craigslist personals used to have value. As of yesterday it had very little value. It was used by scammers, spammers, and sex workers, not be legitimate daters.
That’s just a fact. The government didn’t declare it so.
Craigslist, as of yesterday, decided:
[ul]
[li]That since the value of keeping personals was low[/li][li]The effort of policing the category for sex trafficking, prostitution, scammers, and illegal porn was high. [/li][li]The potential liability not policing the category for the above was now higher.[/li][li]That therefore the cost of keeping the category outweighed the benefit.[/li][/ul]
They could have made another choice. They could have aggressively moderated the category to keep out the scammers. But if they did that there wouldn’t be anything left, because legit users didn’t exist anymore, because they’d all been driven out by the garbage. OK, maybe with aggressive moderation it would mean legit users could return.
Except that conflicts with Craigslist’s business model. They are a famously low overhead organization. Aggressive moderation requires paid staff, and that costs money. Craigslist exists as free classified ads by keeping costs at rock bottom. They’re not going to turn into eHarmony, which has a completely different business model.
Bottom line, Craigslist is smart because they stick to being Craigslist, not chasing trends. They can’t clean up their personals section without a different business model, and so they jettisoned it.
Your statement right here is an oxymoron.
Craigslist is still up, everywhere except America I guess.
It would be easier to just legalize prostitution rather than banning personal ads on craigslist.
You get what you pay for.
Wow. :rolleyes:
Yeah, there seems to be a real smack down on the online prostitution sites. I just saw that one of the bigger online review sites/communities (also many ladies on there) has now blocked US access; you need to have an IP address from abroad to access the site (I’m Dutch and only went to that site because of the news, so that’s how I got that news).
From what I’ve read, if these actions are here to stay, that’s going to be a real big change for the sex industry in the US.
It seems some of the posters in MPSIMS don’t need to worry about their addiction or spending too much money for the near future.
Didn’t they already try to prosecute the CEO once and fail miserably?
Apparently a new law was just passed by congress a few days ago to get around the earlier problem, and thus allow the prosecution of the CEO. Hence all the sudden action.
In summary, by my understanding: the earlier Comminications Decency Act said that web sites could not be held liable for their content. The new act ammends this to say that ads for sex trafficking is an exception.
I’ve never seen Back Page, but I’m sure there were no “adds for sex trafficking”.
What you meant to say that websites are now liable if advertisements advertise sex, which are then deemed to be linked to sex trafficking.
As a non-user of Craig’s list, and of prostitution services, I’m sad that Craig’s list shut down their personal ads. It seemed to me like Craig’s list was a responsible site that cooperated with law enforcement and, for example, helped to catch and ultimately convict some of the worst actors in sex work. (Traffickers and men who murder hookers.) I don’t think this will reduce the amount of prostitution in the US, but i wonder if driving it to less legitimate locales might make trafficking and other abusive practices safer for the perps.
Yes, that’s a more precise way to put it.
Exactly. Look, I get prostitution, even if between two consenting adults, is unsavory to a lot of people.
But the fact is, prostitution ain’t going anywhere. And we know from history what happens when you try to prohibit the unprohibitable. Abortion, Alcohol, drugs… It’s never worked out well for us.
So get ready for more dead hookers and johns folks.
Just legalize the damn thing already. Making it illegal to sell something that’s completely legal to give away for free, is the apex of absurdity.
Realistically though, legalization is impossible because the puritans, feminists, “progressive” moral crusaders, and “white knights” will never allow it.
Make no mistake, we’re living in a police state.
I think your anger is misplaced. Puritans? Sure, they oppose legalizing prostitution. Feminists, progressives, “moral crusaders” and “white knights”. Not so much. Check out the “would this woman date you” thread.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=852295