Backpage Raided, CEO Arrested on Sex-Trafficking Charges(abcnews.go.com)
abcnews.go.com
Backpage Raided, CEO Arrested on Sex-Trafficking Charges
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/backpage-raided-ceo-arrested-texas-42630540
255 comments
Why is it that in such cases, the government reaches for the CEO right away; but when Wells Fargo employees open millions of fraudulent accounts, it's not the CEO's fault? If I were to commit identity theft (which is basically what the WF employees did), then I would be facing jail time; why hasn't anyone in WF been charged with criminal fraud yet? Why not the CEO?
I think Matt Levine's take on this is right on:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-09/wells-far.... Senior management wanted employees to do REAL cross-selling to make money, but the metrics were set so high that employees turned to fake accounts to meet the standard. The fake accounts did not benefit the bank in any substantial way:
So that's about 2.1 million fake deposit and credit-card accounts, of which about 100,000 -- fewer than 5 percent -- brought in any fee income to Wells Fargo. The total fee income was $2.4 million, or about $1.14 per fake account. And that overstates the profitability: Wells Fargo also enrolled people for debit cards and online banking, but the CFPB doesn't bother to count those incidents, or suggest that any of them led to any fees. Which makes sense: You'd expect online banking and debit cards to be free, if you never use them or even know about them. Meanwhile, all this dumb stuff seems to have occupied huge amounts of employee time that could have been spent on more productive activities. If you divide the $2.4 million among the 5,300 employees fired for setting up fake accounts, you get about $450 per employee. Presumably it cost Wells Fargo way more than that just to replace them.
It seems senior management set up a stupid employee incentive program, but were not intentionally involved in the fraud.
So that's about 2.1 million fake deposit and credit-card accounts, of which about 100,000 -- fewer than 5 percent -- brought in any fee income to Wells Fargo. The total fee income was $2.4 million, or about $1.14 per fake account. And that overstates the profitability: Wells Fargo also enrolled people for debit cards and online banking, but the CFPB doesn't bother to count those incidents, or suggest that any of them led to any fees. Which makes sense: You'd expect online banking and debit cards to be free, if you never use them or even know about them. Meanwhile, all this dumb stuff seems to have occupied huge amounts of employee time that could have been spent on more productive activities. If you divide the $2.4 million among the 5,300 employees fired for setting up fake accounts, you get about $450 per employee. Presumably it cost Wells Fargo way more than that just to replace them.
It seems senior management set up a stupid employee incentive program, but were not intentionally involved in the fraud.
Matt Levine just shows that Wells Fargo wanted a paper trail showing that they told employees not to do this. The interesting question is, what happened when whistleblowers told them it was happening anyway? Apparently, the answer is that they fired the whistleblowers. That says everything about what Wells Fargo really wanted, as opposed to what they said to cover their asses. Remember, he's an industry insider with a bias.
Explain what exactly Wells Fargo upper management had to gain from the fake cards? They wouldn't generate real money for the company. The people who stand to benefit most are the individual employees.
I don't know the banking industry well so maybe there is some way for the company to make money off fake cards but I can't think of one. And because of that, I tend to believe that upper management really did not intend it to happen.
I don't know the banking industry well so maybe there is some way for the company to make money off fake cards but I can't think of one. And because of that, I tend to believe that upper management really did not intend it to happen.
If you own stock in the company and this causes the stock to go up (even if the rise is artificially inflated) you can still make plenty of money.
Yeah but what about fake accounts would make the stock go up? Wouldn't it actually make the revenue per account go down which would seem to me to be negative indicator. But again, I don't know the banking industry.
Their stock price was heavily based on their high cross-selling metrics.
It's a short term bonus ploy, and the idea is it doesn't get found out while they're at the company Also a lot of head-in-the-sand doublethink too. Michael Lewis' book, and other in-depth reports about bankers' behaviour in the market / housing crash explains it nicely. Short term incentives for executives and moving jobs means that they aren't there when the chips are down.
Growth metrics
[deleted]
> The people who stand to benefit most are the individual employees.
And their managers, and their managers' managers, whose income depends on showing good numbers to the nth-managers.
And their managers, and their managers' managers, whose income depends on showing good numbers to the nth-managers.
> Apparently, the answer is that they fired the whistleblowers.
That's the major sin here.
That's the major sin here.
I'm shocked - shocked! - to find that gambling is going on here!
For those that don't get the above reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM_A4Skusro
> The interesting question is, what happened when whistleblowers told them it was happening anyway? Apparently, the answer is that they fired the whistleblowers. That says everything about what Wells Fargo really wanted
It says everything about what the people in the loop of those decisions wanted, perhaps, but those people (at least, those for whom there is a known paper trail of them being in the loop) are probably several steps removed from the CEO. They also probably also maintained enough of a paper trail of the notional reasons that they were firing the people involved that, while its a reasonable inference from the association between whistleblowing and firing that there was an ulterior motive, it would be far from certain that that could be established to the degree necessary for that to the basis of criminal culpability.
It says everything about what the people in the loop of those decisions wanted, perhaps, but those people (at least, those for whom there is a known paper trail of them being in the loop) are probably several steps removed from the CEO. They also probably also maintained enough of a paper trail of the notional reasons that they were firing the people involved that, while its a reasonable inference from the association between whistleblowing and firing that there was an ulterior motive, it would be far from certain that that could be established to the degree necessary for that to the basis of criminal culpability.
This ignores that top management is also paid in large part with company stock and in the 5 years prior to this being discovered the stock doubled. One of the metrics that had investors excited was the increasing number of accounts which was publicly reported.
I would have an easier time believing this if the company had not retaliated against people who tried to complain internally.
They fired thousands of people for creating accounts without permission. It's hard to say they looked the other way.
It doesn't seem possible that 5000(!) employees did this and the CEO had not a clue.
Maybe they should have figured out that their incentive structures were wrong when they had to fire 5000 people over several years. But the very act of firing thousands of people shows that they were discouraging it, strongly.
Did you know that there's a reality tv show based on this premise?
Of course it is. In a company that size where employees work all across the country it's actually very hard for the CEO to find out about sth like this.
He can only create structures (e.g. internal audit team) that are powerful enough to detect it and report it to him.
He can only create structures (e.g. internal audit team) that are powerful enough to detect it and report it to him.
"Give a manager a numerical target & he will hit it, even if it means destroying the company to do so."
You're comparing apples and oranges. The CEO of a small internet company almost certainly has a hand in everything the company does. The CEO of a large corporation has no idea what the line workers are doing.[1] If a bunch of Yahoo employees had gone off and run as sex-trafficking site off Yahoo's servers, they wouldn't go arrest Marissa Mayer. Not because "lobbying" but because that would be stupid and unreasonable.
[1] I've done internal investigations at megacorps. When something shady goes down with line employees they hire teams of lawyers just to tell management what the heck is going on inside their own company.
[1] I've done internal investigations at megacorps. When something shady goes down with line employees they hire teams of lawyers just to tell management what the heck is going on inside their own company.
When there's a couple of rogue employees I can understand. When there are millions of fraudulent accounts it starts to look like a policy or at least criminal neglicence.
And there are also the companies that are convinced of fraud like Deutsche Bank, but it's the company that pays a huge fine when the executives who were overseeing all this go unscathed.
I have worked in a bank and I know a lot of people there have no clue what's going on, but the fact that it's true does not mean it's a valid excuse. If I kill a pedestrian with my car I can not claim it's not my fault because I had my eyes closed.
And there are also the companies that are convinced of fraud like Deutsche Bank, but it's the company that pays a huge fine when the executives who were overseeing all this go unscathed.
I have worked in a bank and I know a lot of people there have no clue what's going on, but the fact that it's true does not mean it's a valid excuse. If I kill a pedestrian with my car I can not claim it's not my fault because I had my eyes closed.
I think it somewhat boils down to intention. In the case of Wells Fargo, opening fraudulent accounts couldn't have accrued any benefit for the bank. It seems more likely that it would have increased overall cost for the company. Yes, the fraud is attributable to stressing too much on reaching an upselling goal, but it's hard to imagine it's a thing that CEO would have wanted. Should we start punishing people for managerial oversight?
> opening fraudulent accounts couldn't have accrued any benefit for the bank
Actually, in the hearing Senator Warren tried to connect the fraudulent accounts to the stock price, which would have been a direct benefit for the bank:
> You squeezed your employees to the breaking point so they would cheat customers and you could drive up the value of your stock and put hundreds of millions of dollars in your own pocket. And when it all blew up, you kept your job, you kept your multimillion-dollar bonuses and you went on television to blame thousands of $12-an-hour employees.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/business/wells-fargo-tests...
Actually, in the hearing Senator Warren tried to connect the fraudulent accounts to the stock price, which would have been a direct benefit for the bank:
> You squeezed your employees to the breaking point so they would cheat customers and you could drive up the value of your stock and put hundreds of millions of dollars in your own pocket. And when it all blew up, you kept your job, you kept your multimillion-dollar bonuses and you went on television to blame thousands of $12-an-hour employees.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/business/wells-fargo-tests...
Senator Warren is really good at generating sound bites for people who have no idea about how companies work but are abstractly mad at them. The idea that WF would engage in systematic fraud to goose revenue by about $2.4 million is absurd (or add a bunch of accounts generating only that much in revenue--as if Wall Street analysts won't compute revenue per account).
Wells Fargo was touting its new account metrics to investors in addition to the typical revenue numbers. The idea being that if Wells Fargo is gaining that many new customers and new accounts, it would lead to a lot more revenue in the future.
Wells Fargo pushed its employees so hard to open accounts because there was a benefit to doing so.
Wells Fargo pushed its employees so hard to open accounts because there was a benefit to doing so.
Revenue growth isn't the only important metric here.
They created two million new accounts, letting them go to the market and tout demand for their banking services.
They created two million new accounts, letting them go to the market and tout demand for their banking services.
Having more accounts isn't automatically a good sign for the stock market. It's too easy for a bank to get accounts, you just offer people a sign-up bonus. The number of clients alone will usually not inflate the stock price.
That was my first thought, even before I heard what Warren had to say. IIRC, Lending Tree was doing something similar. People associated with the company were opening accounts with which to borrow or lend money in order to juice the books and report increased earnings.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-18/how-lendin...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-08-18/how-lendin...
My understanding is that the multiple accounts were an end run around the per-account limits on various fees.
[deleted](1)
You are talking about 5,000 current employees being fired and many employees who were fired for reporting it. If he didn't know, then he must not know other things about Wells Fargo that are equally important.
> You are talking about 5,000 current employees being fired and many employees who were fired for reporting it. If he didn't know, then he must not know other things about Wells Fargo that are equally important.
I'm sure that's the case, and I'm sure it's also the case for most CEOs of massive companies.
Wells Fargo has more than 250,000 employees and more than 6000 branches -- more branches than any other US bank. There is nobody who knows everything that is going on. It's just not possible.
The number of employees fired represents a tiny fraction of the total number of employees -- about 2% or less.
I'm sure that's the case, and I'm sure it's also the case for most CEOs of massive companies.
Wells Fargo has more than 250,000 employees and more than 6000 branches -- more branches than any other US bank. There is nobody who knows everything that is going on. It's just not possible.
The number of employees fired represents a tiny fraction of the total number of employees -- about 2% or less.
Then how does this spread around to all the branches if (way) upper management doesn't know? Does Suzy in Fl really spend her time chatting up Jackie in CA to get the scoop on all the D/L ways to cheat? They have a little IRC channel for duping WF management?
Because some fraction of people are cheaters. Just think of how many people you know who cheated in school. I'd say the number is 10% or higher. Some of those people became CEOs who continued to cheat, but many became low-level bank employees who continued to cheat.
And if you're being measured on how many accounts you create, and the system doesn't have checks to keep people from opening accounts without consent, it's not exactly hard for all the cheaters to figure out what to do. Again, think back to all the ways people cheated in school. You think they had to coordinate to figure out how to cheat?
And if you're being measured on how many accounts you create, and the system doesn't have checks to keep people from opening accounts without consent, it's not exactly hard for all the cheaters to figure out what to do. Again, think back to all the ways people cheated in school. You think they had to coordinate to figure out how to cheat?
The management in one branch likely socializes with the management in near-by branches. It spreads through drinks and "Yeah, it's dumb; we just do <sketchy behaviour> so we can get back to work".
Have you ever had a job? Have you ever had management insist upon some stupid metric or some deadline that just could not be met and they refused to hear about it?
People had to open new accounts or lose their jobs. Some people opened fake accounts to accomplish this. When they were found out, they were fired. Sounds like a horrible place to work, but the firings were proof that management didn't want this to happen, not some bizarro proof that this is what they wanted all along.
You don't need coordination to figure out how to game a system.
People had to open new accounts or lose their jobs. Some people opened fake accounts to accomplish this. When they were found out, they were fired. Sounds like a horrible place to work, but the firings were proof that management didn't want this to happen, not some bizarro proof that this is what they wanted all along.
You don't need coordination to figure out how to game a system.
This is not quite right. They were pressured by managers to open fake accounts, fired for not making quotas if not, fired if they reported the practice, and then all fired once the government finds out and it blows up. Of course the senior management plays dumb and keeps their jobs.
They were not "all fired, once the government found out."
Wells Fargo confirmed to CNNMoney that it had fired 5,300 employees over the last few years related to the shady behavior. Employees went so far as to create phony PIN numbers and fake email addresses to enroll customers in online banking services, the CFPB said.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/investing/wells-fargo-create...
Wells Fargo confirmed to CNNMoney that it had fired 5,300 employees over the last few years related to the shady behavior. Employees went so far as to create phony PIN numbers and fake email addresses to enroll customers in online banking services, the CFPB said.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/investing/wells-fargo-create...
Making fake accounts is a pretty obvious solution to increasing cross-selling numbers. I'm sure almost all of the branch employees thought about it, but only some actually did it.
You get what you measure. You measure account creation, you'll get account creation. You measure legitimate account creation, and it's a different ballgame.
You get what you measure. You measure account creation, you'll get account creation. You measure legitimate account creation, and it's a different ballgame.
> If he didn't know, then he must not know other things about Wells Fargo that are equally important.
Yes, but establishing the former (which is a crime) as opposed to the latter (which is an internal business matter for Wells Fargo) is the tricky part.
Yes, but establishing the former (which is a crime) as opposed to the latter (which is an internal business matter for Wells Fargo) is the tricky part.
The CEO gets credit and a lot of money when things go right so he should take blame when things go wrong.
Personally I think they could find out about a lot of wrongdoing if they wanted to.
Personally I think they could find out about a lot of wrongdoing if they wanted to.
The question wasn't whether he should take blame, but whether he should be criminally charged. Sounds a bit over the top - I'd rather see WF fined, and then the CEO sued by the shareholders, and forced to pay damages if proven he knew or should have known.
That's an okay opinion, but I'd like to see CEOs criminally charged and go to jail if it's proven that they knew or should have known what was going on.
He is the CEO. He should have known 5000 employees were engaging in fraudulent operations.
Wells Fargo has 265.000 employees. A CEO certainly has to make sure that there's internal oversight according to regulations and industry standards but it's not his job to personally go spying on people (try doing that on 265.000 employees) or implement the Wells Fargo Gestapo.
If it cannot be proven that he knew about it or encouraged this behaviour then he cannot be held legally accountable. It's like demanding the US president should go to prison because some CIA team somewhere does some really shady stuff that he doesn't know about.
Shareholders might still choose to fire that guy, but it's a choice they have, they do not have to if they are satisfied with his performance.
How come that people today lose their ability to reason as soon as bankers are involved? It's similar to the National Socialists reasoning when they blamed the Jews for everything bad "because they had the all money and controlled the world"
If it cannot be proven that he knew about it or encouraged this behaviour then he cannot be held legally accountable. It's like demanding the US president should go to prison because some CIA team somewhere does some really shady stuff that he doesn't know about.
Shareholders might still choose to fire that guy, but it's a choice they have, they do not have to if they are satisfied with his performance.
How come that people today lose their ability to reason as soon as bankers are involved? It's similar to the National Socialists reasoning when they blamed the Jews for everything bad "because they had the all money and controlled the world"
Who can then be held responsible when a big company commits criminal acts? Maybe they should arrest all people who opened those fraudulent accounts. All of them. Maybe that will be a deterrent.
But in general a CEO should have a duty to ask questions why a certain division seems to be doing well. Maybe it has to do with earnings targets that are simply unachievable? I see that in my own company. The top guys are setting shorter and shorter deadlines and in my view the quality of engineering suffers. Top management doesn't technically know when people are cutting corners but they could easily have listened to people that the demands are too high.
But in general a CEO should have a duty to ask questions why a certain division seems to be doing well. Maybe it has to do with earnings targets that are simply unachievable? I see that in my own company. The top guys are setting shorter and shorter deadlines and in my view the quality of engineering suffers. Top management doesn't technically know when people are cutting corners but they could easily have listened to people that the demands are too high.
> Who can then be held responsible when a big company commits criminal acts?
My opinion: Anyone who took part in it either knowing it is illegal or even if the person should have known it is illegal considering his/her position.
Same goes for persons that didn't necessarily know about it but acted negligent or ignored standard procedures that are in place to prevent such a thing.
> But in general a CEO should have a duty to ask questions why a certain division seems to be doing well
Could be negligence, I don't know the specifics here. If it was then he has to be held accountable. But his head might roll in the end regardlessly as people always need a scapegoat, no matter if it's his fault or not. Yet when the government takes action it should not do so just to punish a scapegoat, they should punish because the person broke a law. (if the shareholders fire him even though it's not his fault I couldn't care less, it's their investment and they do not have to act rationally if they want to)
My opinion: Anyone who took part in it either knowing it is illegal or even if the person should have known it is illegal considering his/her position.
Same goes for persons that didn't necessarily know about it but acted negligent or ignored standard procedures that are in place to prevent such a thing.
> But in general a CEO should have a duty to ask questions why a certain division seems to be doing well
Could be negligence, I don't know the specifics here. If it was then he has to be held accountable. But his head might roll in the end regardlessly as people always need a scapegoat, no matter if it's his fault or not. Yet when the government takes action it should not do so just to punish a scapegoat, they should punish because the person broke a law. (if the shareholders fire him even though it's not his fault I couldn't care less, it's their investment and they do not have to act rationally if they want to)
> My opinion: Anyone who took part in it either knowing it is illegal or even if the person should have known it is illegal considering his/her position.
As a general rule, we don't hold people criminally liable for simple negligence.
As a general rule, we don't hold people criminally liable for simple negligence.
As a general rule, knowing that something is illegal isn't part of the required mental state, even for acts that require doing something "knowingly"; that usually refers to knowing the specific facts that make the act illegal, not knowing the law under which those acts are illegal.
I did not say "simple" negligence, that is determined by others who know the specifics of this case.
Criminal law makes a distinction between gross negligence (locking the doors to a busy club so people can't get out which then catches on fire and kills everyone), and ordinary negligence (securing a heavy thing in the air with just a knot that falls and kills someone). Even if someone "should have known," that is almost never enough for criminal liability.
Well the head of the Community Banking division should definitely have known. But she's being allowed to retire with her full financial package.
They fired 5000 employees because they were opening fake accounts. Wells found these people on their own and fired them.
In normal people world, this is proof that Wells was taking the problem of fake accounts seriously. (It also sounds like a horrible place to work, but that's a separate issue.)
In normal people world, this is proof that Wells was taking the problem of fake accounts seriously. (It also sounds like a horrible place to work, but that's a separate issue.)
>The CEO of a small internet company almost certainly has a hand in everything the company does. The CEO of a large corporation has no idea what the line workers are doing.
If that's the case they should be paid like the CEO of a small internet company. You take the money, you take the responsibility.
If that's the case they should be paid like the CEO of a small internet company. You take the money, you take the responsibility.
I agree. It doesn't have to be collusion, in fact, I can easily imagine that there's no large scale coordination, maybe just coordination in small 5-10 person teams. For any incentive scheme, there's going to be a subset of people trying to game it. Given that potentially tens of thousands of employees were presented with the same incentive scheme (the performance system), it makes sense that many people/small groups could independently create similar strategies.
I think it's made more concrete by thinking of how many times you've thought of an app, business, screenplay, etc. and realized later that a dozen others have had the same idea. I bet a dozen people in this thread independently sketched out an app like Uber/Homejoy/"AirBnb-for-X" at some point just based off having the common annoyance of taxi-finding or hiring help.
In standup comedy, this happens a lot because we're all living in 2016 so any joke about the election, Bradjelina, Game of Thrones or any other sufficiently public/widely-discussed topic will have dozens of people trying to make a joke off of it. I'd guess that the set of actions you can take in a 'corporate game' is more finite and structured, so it makes sense that thousands among tens/hundreds of thousands adopt the same strategy.
I think it's made more concrete by thinking of how many times you've thought of an app, business, screenplay, etc. and realized later that a dozen others have had the same idea. I bet a dozen people in this thread independently sketched out an app like Uber/Homejoy/"AirBnb-for-X" at some point just based off having the common annoyance of taxi-finding or hiring help.
In standup comedy, this happens a lot because we're all living in 2016 so any joke about the election, Bradjelina, Game of Thrones or any other sufficiently public/widely-discussed topic will have dozens of people trying to make a joke off of it. I'd guess that the set of actions you can take in a 'corporate game' is more finite and structured, so it makes sense that thousands among tens/hundreds of thousands adopt the same strategy.
Logical answer right here. No conspiracy theories, for once.
It's not credible that C-level management were unaware. 5000+ employees doing the same thing, repeatedly, means collusion and coordination up the management hierarchy was taking place. Either internal anti-fraud controls failed, or this activity was actively ignored at management direction. At the very least, the C-level manager at the top of the organization that engaged in this fraud was responsible for a system failure and should be dismissed for cause, without their bonus or severance. Having a lawyer say "Huh, I guess they didn't know" is exactly the cover they need for feigned ignorance.
It means nothing of the sort. People socialize with coworkers all the time, and workarounds for dumb metrics is exactly the sort of thing that get gossipped about.
And "figure out how to make fake accounts" is pretty easy. This absolutely doesn't need coordination at all.
Once worked somewhere that management measured you by number of checkins. Engineers didn't need to talk with each other at all to get those numbers going way up. And they did, you betcha. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
Once worked somewhere that management measured you by number of checkins. Engineers didn't need to talk with each other at all to get those numbers going way up. And they did, you betcha. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
Kim dot com is facing extradition to a country he has never set foot in, for crimes far less than what Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz have done. Justice is a sort of illusion.
Factually incorrect... Before Mega when has was a Ponzi scheme operator and self-professed super-hacker he posted pictures all the time of his trips around the world in super-yacht, private jets and expensive cars. Including the US.
The CEO has money, connections, and the thin veneer of respectability. The issues involved are not so simple and emotive as the ones relating to sex and minors.
You know... the usual bullshit.
You know... the usual bullshit.
Wells Fargo execs have better lawyers, and they went to the same schools as prosecutors, they dress alike, and there is no significant revolving door arrangement between prosecutors and online prostitution enterprises.
Because he plays golf with a lot of politicians at the country club.
> Why is it that in such cases, the government reaches for the CEO right away;
War on sex is new War on Drugs. By going after the CEO they are setting a precedent. They want to make sure no investor would invest into something that challenges government authority.
Wells Fargo CEO will not be touched for the same reason why big banks get bailouts, Hillary clinton is not in jail and Obama is still a president despite killing thousands of innocent people around earth. They are too close to powers.
War on sex is new War on Drugs. By going after the CEO they are setting a precedent. They want to make sure no investor would invest into something that challenges government authority.
Wells Fargo CEO will not be touched for the same reason why big banks get bailouts, Hillary clinton is not in jail and Obama is still a president despite killing thousands of innocent people around earth. They are too close to powers.
> Hillary clinton is not in jail
Ugh not this again. Hillary is not in jail because her actions did not rise to the level of criminal prosecution. Look at General Petraeus. He willfully gave highly classified material to his mistress. He got a plea deal and didn't serve any time. So how is it that Clinton who did not intentionally divulge classified material nor put an authorized server on the classified network, now deserves to be punished more harshly than Petraeus? That doesn't make any sense.
Ugh not this again. Hillary is not in jail because her actions did not rise to the level of criminal prosecution. Look at General Petraeus. He willfully gave highly classified material to his mistress. He got a plea deal and didn't serve any time. So how is it that Clinton who did not intentionally divulge classified material nor put an authorized server on the classified network, now deserves to be punished more harshly than Petraeus? That doesn't make any sense.
You can be a Hillary apologist for the sake of political arguments. The thing is if I had done the exact same thing I would be termed a traitor and put in jail.
> and Obama is still a president despite killing thousands of innocent people around earth.
Why not Bush? He's the fucking moron who started it all because he had daddy issues, and killed way more innocents ( > 300,000 ) than Obama??
Why not Bush? He's the fucking moron who started it all because he had daddy issues, and killed way more innocents ( > 300,000 ) than Obama??
Obama is just an mechanism. In case of Iraq war I think Bush and a large part of his administration must be jailed.
The vice lobby is apparently kinda weak.
> Why is it that in such cases, the government reaches for the CEO right away; but when Wells Fargo employees open millions of fraudulent accounts, it's not the CEO's fault?
Probably because a corporation like Wells Fargo will have extensive documentation of procedures and training that establishes sufficient evidence that there were efforts to constrain employee behavior to lawful acts in pursuit of the metrics which they ended up maximizing through unlawful acts that it will take a lot of digging, at a minimum, to have a viable case of executive criminal culpability.
Probably because a corporation like Wells Fargo will have extensive documentation of procedures and training that establishes sufficient evidence that there were efforts to constrain employee behavior to lawful acts in pursuit of the metrics which they ended up maximizing through unlawful acts that it will take a lot of digging, at a minimum, to have a viable case of executive criminal culpability.
Even if I were to grant that the Wells Fargo CEO should have been charged with fraud and he was not, that does not mean this BackPage scum-CEO should not have been charged.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
99% of Wells Fargo's income was not coming from these fake accounts.
It is fine to steal as long as it is only a small percentage of your income?
When the threshold is to prove in court beyond a reasonable standard of doubt, it's going to be hard to prove that some horrible scheme that was never going to generate money (open a bunch of accounts customers don't know about and won't use, aside from some small amount of fees that will annoy customers) was undertaken deliberately, especially when it would only be a small part of the enterprise.
If it's 99% of your income, the CEO knows about it. If it's a tiny percentage, or none at all, the CEO might not know about it.
>but when Wells Fargo employees open millions of fraudulent accounts
Do you think forced prostitution and sex-traficking are equally harmful to society as fake accounts? I know I'm glad that authorities take this more seriously.
We need a Godwin's Law for random HackerNews threads that bring up alleged bank CEO crimes.
Do you think forced prostitution and sex-traficking are equally harmful to society as fake accounts? I know I'm glad that authorities take this more seriously.
We need a Godwin's Law for random HackerNews threads that bring up alleged bank CEO crimes.
Because the CEO of a large bank/group has more leverage and influence than a small internet business.
Because bankers are better at committing fraud and hiding their tracks?
Because, get freaking real, there are 267K FTE at WF .. versus backapage probably hires what, maybe a 100 or so?
If some % of 267K people are not committing fraud, than I'd want to arrest the CEO for doing some terrible brainwashing.
If some % of 267K people are not committing fraud, than I'd want to arrest the CEO for doing some terrible brainwashing.
FWIW, this headline is not completely accurate. The story itself says further down the page, "Ferrer was arrested on felony charges of pimping a minor, pimping, and conspiracy to commit pimping." None of these are actually trafficking charges; they're run-of-the-mill prostitution charges.
There's also a story from a young girl who was forced into sex work, which is certainly awful, and some stuff about studies and claims of sex trafficking, but there's a clickbait factor to the headline. There are a variety of new state and federal laws on sex trafficking which were passed in recent years, and nobody associated with Backpage has been charged under any of them, afaict.
There's also a story from a young girl who was forced into sex work, which is certainly awful, and some stuff about studies and claims of sex trafficking, but there's a clickbait factor to the headline. There are a variety of new state and federal laws on sex trafficking which were passed in recent years, and nobody associated with Backpage has been charged under any of them, afaict.
It is unlikely that Ferrer was her pimp as it is usually understood. It looks like that the state wants to charge him as a pimp because he provided a venue for sex workers to advertise and therefore was effectively doing promotion. It is unclear at this point whether the court will agree with that interpretation or not. I am sure the 15 yo was brought into the charging documents as a sob story for the public (and later the jury) and to pressure the accused to make some sort of a plea deal.
>It looks like that the state wants to charge him as a pimp because he provided a venue for sex workers to advertise and therefore was effectively doing promotion
That's a bit disturbing to read, since sex workers use a lot of popular social networking sites to advertise their services. The effect of removing these venues is simply to push the trade further underground, thereby obstructing oversight and participant safety.
That's a bit disturbing to read, since sex workers use a lot of popular social networking sites to advertise their services. The effect of removing these venues is simply to push the trade further underground, thereby obstructing oversight and participant safety.
and it was based on a few reports of minors, who paid for ads on backpage.com, and that the sin was backpage.com took their money and should have known they were minors somehow. Out of millions of ads posted annually, they should have known that those three women were underage. Even after they checked the "I am 18" box.
Bad backpage. Or maybe someone is trying to get headlines on how they are tough on crime. Because elections.
Bad backpage. Or maybe someone is trying to get headlines on how they are tough on crime. Because elections.
I'm pretty sure backpage has been on LE radar at least since CL shuttered their adult services section. It's pretty widely known as a site used to hire prostitutes, those three women were probably more representative than you think.
yes, they wrote someone was republican and I thought 'who cares?!'
[deleted]
> The story itself says further down the page, "Ferrer was arrested on felony charges of pimping a minor, pimping, and conspiracy to commit pimping." None of these are actually trafficking charges; they're run-of-the-mill prostitution charges.
Prostitution with anything other than free and full consent by someone with full capacity to give consent is sex trafficking; pimping a minor, therefore, is a sex trafficking charge.
> There are a variety of new state and federal laws on sex trafficking
Yes, there are a number of new laws that cover aspects of sex trafficking that were not adequately covered (either because they weren't already illegal, or because the specific lack-of-consent related aspects didn't enhance the offense beyond some base non-trafficking offense), but that doesn't change the fact that pimping a minor is inherently a charge that is based on factors which meet the definition of sex trafficking, even if it was already both prohibited and enhanced beyond the equivalent non-trafficking charge (simple pimping) prior the recent round of additional trafficking-related legislation.
Prostitution with anything other than free and full consent by someone with full capacity to give consent is sex trafficking; pimping a minor, therefore, is a sex trafficking charge.
> There are a variety of new state and federal laws on sex trafficking
Yes, there are a number of new laws that cover aspects of sex trafficking that were not adequately covered (either because they weren't already illegal, or because the specific lack-of-consent related aspects didn't enhance the offense beyond some base non-trafficking offense), but that doesn't change the fact that pimping a minor is inherently a charge that is based on factors which meet the definition of sex trafficking, even if it was already both prohibited and enhanced beyond the equivalent non-trafficking charge (simple pimping) prior the recent round of additional trafficking-related legislation.
[deleted]
> pimping a minor
> run-of-the-mill prostitution charges
I sincerely fucking hope that isn't "run of the mill".
> run-of-the-mill
> adj. Not special or outstanding; average.
> run-of-the-mill prostitution charges
I sincerely fucking hope that isn't "run of the mill".
> run-of-the-mill
> adj. Not special or outstanding; average.
"Run-of-the-mill" in that sentence modifies "prostitution". When I read that person's sentence I think, "So, what kind of prostitution charge is average or not special? That kind." That's what they think, anyway. Whether this is true or false could be validated by seeing what kind of prostitution cases are commonly brought vs uncommonly brought.
> So, what kind of prostitution charge is average or not special? That kind.
I don't even want to know how you consider a child prostitution charge "average or not special".
I don't even want to know how you consider a child prostitution charge "average or not special".
It's not that these charges are average, it's that trafficking charges are a distinct group from prostitution; prostitution charges are the far more standard group, and hence are run-of-the-mill, even though the specific charges within that group are not typical of that group.
> trafficking charges are a distinct group from prostitution
Incorrect. Sex trafficking includes (among other commercial coerced sex) any instance of prostitution which involves anything other than free and full consent from someone with capacity to consent to sex; minors by definition lack capacity to consent, so pimping a minor is an offense which falls completely within the bounds of sex trafficking. (Unlike simple pimping, solicitation, etc., which may overlap with sex trafficking, but also include acts which are not sex trafficking.)
Incorrect. Sex trafficking includes (among other commercial coerced sex) any instance of prostitution which involves anything other than free and full consent from someone with capacity to consent to sex; minors by definition lack capacity to consent, so pimping a minor is an offense which falls completely within the bounds of sex trafficking. (Unlike simple pimping, solicitation, etc., which may overlap with sex trafficking, but also include acts which are not sex trafficking.)
[deleted]
Your comments here are based on emotion, others are approaching this analytically.
This stuff happens; just like murder, rape, arson, etc.
It's irrational to get upset about someone using a common idiom to convey that this isn't a typical instance of child prostitution.
This stuff happens; just like murder, rape, arson, etc.
It's irrational to get upset about someone using a common idiom to convey that this isn't a typical instance of child prostitution.
> child prostitution
Child sexual exploitation. The vast majority of children involved aren't there through free choice.
Child sexual exploitation. The vast majority of children involved aren't there through free choice.
Sure...?
I didn't intend to imply otherwise.
I didn't intend to imply otherwise.
The term "child prostitution" is associated is a few countries with some severe failings of law enforcement to protect children from harm.
Notably, in the UK some police forces were saying that children could chose to become prostitutes, and these children were promiscuous.
Notably, in the UK some police forces were saying that children could chose to become prostitutes, and these children were promiscuous.
Only in America you would think that a 16 or 17 year old would never choose to have sex for benefits unless forced into it.
I'm not american.
And I didn't say "never", I said in the vast majority.
And the child we're talking about here is 15, not 16 or 17.
Your comment was wrong on every point.
And I didn't say "never", I said in the vast majority.
And the child we're talking about here is 15, not 16 or 17.
Your comment was wrong on every point.
I've apologised for the 'US' comment in the other thread. It was out of place. However, I don't think you're being entirely fair either.
FWIW, you said 'Notably, in the UK some police forces were saying that children could chose to become prostitutes, and these children were promiscuous.', implying that what they said was incorrect, and children could never choose to become prostitutes.
If you only meant the 'vast majority' of children doesn't want to become prostitutes, then I don't know what the point of the quote was.
Similarly, nothing about your parent post mentions an age range more specific than 'children', which by default I take to mean anyone legally underage and thus not allowed to make decisions.
15, 16, 17, what's the difference? Somewhere between 12 and 18 both boys and girls become interested in sex; some of them will want to use it to gain higher status.
FWIW, you said 'Notably, in the UK some police forces were saying that children could chose to become prostitutes, and these children were promiscuous.', implying that what they said was incorrect, and children could never choose to become prostitutes.
If you only meant the 'vast majority' of children doesn't want to become prostitutes, then I don't know what the point of the quote was.
Similarly, nothing about your parent post mentions an age range more specific than 'children', which by default I take to mean anyone legally underage and thus not allowed to make decisions.
15, 16, 17, what's the difference? Somewhere between 12 and 18 both boys and girls become interested in sex; some of them will want to use it to gain higher status.
The person you're replying to is from the UK.
Why the anti-American sentiment?
Why the anti-American sentiment?
Eh, apologies. Mostly a cheap shot. It does seem to me people in USA are more prudish about sex and overprotective of children, to the point of denying the underage any agency. But it's a more nuanced discussion, and it's easier to write a snark.
When we find a child who is paid to provide sex we almost always find someone who has been subject to coercive abuse.
It is very rare that we find children who freely make that choice.
Protecting children from that harm --and it is very severe harm-- is important.
It is very rare that we find children who freely make that choice.
Protecting children from that harm --and it is very severe harm-- is important.
Yep, I generally agree with you; we are raising weak/sheltered individuals, and not just in America.
Shielding people from reality doesn't change it, just makes it's ultimate realization more painful.
I've just been seeing a bit too much 'America is evil/bad' lately, consider me triggered :).
Shielding people from reality doesn't change it, just makes it's ultimate realization more painful.
I've just been seeing a bit too much 'America is evil/bad' lately, consider me triggered :).
[deleted]
calm down cowboy and read it again. nobody cares about your emotionally charged confused reaction nor does it make for any good conversation
This was no more a prostitution website than Craigslist, before Craigslist struck a deal with attorney generals of several states to shut down its Adult Classifieds section [1]. In fact, given Craigslist scale it had many more prostitution (and probably child prostitution) ads. The question is: why Craig and this CEO were given such disparate treatment? Because the times have changed, or because Craigslist was much bigger and an arrest of Craig would have unleashed a huge wave of rage from free speech supporters as a violation of the principles of Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act, since classifieds sites are republishers, rather than publishers of content and should not be responsible for the classifieds content.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/business/16craigslist.html :
"The sex ads cost $10 and were on track to bring in $44 million in revenue this year, according to the AIM Group, a consulting firm that closely monitors the company. Craigslist also charges for some real estate and job ads, but most listings are free"
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/business/16craigslist.html :
"The sex ads cost $10 and were on track to bring in $44 million in revenue this year, according to the AIM Group, a consulting firm that closely monitors the company. Craigslist also charges for some real estate and job ads, but most listings are free"
I remember this very vaguely about 3-4 year back but I believe Backpage pretty much publicly said they were there to fill the void. If Craigslist doesn't want to deal with it, then come on over! Craigslist was a warning shot. Backpage new that fully and sprinted into harms way. $$
Backpages, unlike Craigslist, doesn't really have any other business then adulkt ads.
I was wondering about this too. Specifically, I thought websites were held harmless for the content they carry. If somebody posts a threat to the President or something else illegal on a website, is the website liable? If something slanderous shows up in Google, is Google liable for slander? How does that work?
My unverified impression masquerading as understanding is that your liability scales with the level of editorial oversight you provide: that the laws implement something resembling "if you moderate comments about drugs and movie downloads, but never seem to notice prostitution adverts, then you're probably doing that on purpose".
It's possible that the government talked to both. Craigslist walked away from hosting that service, and Backpage did not? I'm just speculating, but the Craigslist thing was a while ago, and should have at least been seen by others as a message to get out.
Even if you are morally opposed to prostitution, is there really any benefit to authorities when you remove a centralized location and move it to the street or many different websites? If you really want to manage the prostitution "problem", having it all on a single website seems like a benefit for managing and researching the issue.
Most sex workers agree that their safety is improved dramatically by having the business side of it out in the open. And, there have been studies on sex worker safety that indicate strongly that legal prostitution is safer for everyone; it also reduces coercion when it is not underground (women don't need a pimp, if law enforcement is on their side).
Since I started paying attention a few years ago, I've noticed that most commentary from law enforcement and politicians on the subject of prostitution frames it as "human trafficking" or just "trafficking", even when there were no non-consenting parties involved (and nearly all prostitution is between consenting adults). It is misleading, unethical, and actively harmful to the safety of the people they're claiming to help, but, they do it anyway. The implication that someone is being forced into sexual slavery makes them seem like the good guys in the story...when, in reality, they're mostly just harassing and imprisoning poor women who are making an honest living the best way they know how.
Of course no one wants to see children being sexually abused. No one wants to see children or otherwise at-risk people forced into prostitution. But, that's already illegal; they don't have to victimize all sex workers to pursue and prosecute those crimes.
The kicker here is that the police found these kids who had been forced into sexual slavery because of the ads on this site. Had it been completely underground, they wouldn't have found them, wouldn't have been able to set up a sting, and wouldn't have been able to get the girls out of a dangerous and abusive situation. Now, it goes further underground, where the risk is even higher.
Since I started paying attention a few years ago, I've noticed that most commentary from law enforcement and politicians on the subject of prostitution frames it as "human trafficking" or just "trafficking", even when there were no non-consenting parties involved (and nearly all prostitution is between consenting adults). It is misleading, unethical, and actively harmful to the safety of the people they're claiming to help, but, they do it anyway. The implication that someone is being forced into sexual slavery makes them seem like the good guys in the story...when, in reality, they're mostly just harassing and imprisoning poor women who are making an honest living the best way they know how.
Of course no one wants to see children being sexually abused. No one wants to see children or otherwise at-risk people forced into prostitution. But, that's already illegal; they don't have to victimize all sex workers to pursue and prosecute those crimes.
The kicker here is that the police found these kids who had been forced into sexual slavery because of the ads on this site. Had it been completely underground, they wouldn't have found them, wouldn't have been able to set up a sting, and wouldn't have been able to get the girls out of a dangerous and abusive situation. Now, it goes further underground, where the risk is even higher.
"Most sex workers agree that their safety is improved dramatically by having the business side of it out in the open. And, there have been studies on sex worker safety that indicate strongly that legal prostitution is safer for everyone; it also reduces coercion when it is not underground (women don't need a pimp, if law enforcement is on their side)."
I did a lot of research on that in college for some legalizing prostitution essays. The research I found, both scholarly and anecdotal, totally supported this. The worst thing I found is that there were many incidences of rape or abuse by clients, pimps, or even cops that were made easier to get away with via the stigma of prostitution. Just bringing up the details of the crime was enough to get themselves arrested. In some cases, judges tossed it out since they equated prostitution with asking for it.
So, taking action like this isn't just taking a stand against the act of prostitution: it's also supporting worse crimes to happen to prostitutes and others around them. Not even necessarily people participating. It can be just a caring person that runs afoul of the pimps that want the status quo to remain for specific women.
I did a lot of research on that in college for some legalizing prostitution essays. The research I found, both scholarly and anecdotal, totally supported this. The worst thing I found is that there were many incidences of rape or abuse by clients, pimps, or even cops that were made easier to get away with via the stigma of prostitution. Just bringing up the details of the crime was enough to get themselves arrested. In some cases, judges tossed it out since they equated prostitution with asking for it.
So, taking action like this isn't just taking a stand against the act of prostitution: it's also supporting worse crimes to happen to prostitutes and others around them. Not even necessarily people participating. It can be just a caring person that runs afoul of the pimps that want the status quo to remain for specific women.
There was an out-pour of articles on this topic after MyRedBook closure, e.g. http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Closure-of-prostitution-...
Thanks for the article. This part jumped out:
""In some instances, you can only get high marks on performance if you perform" without using condoms or other protection, Graham said."
Back then, I didn't think about the effect recommendation systems would have outside filtering bad clients. This negative effect on positive reviews is totally believable after all the stories I've seen about people extorting eBay or Amazon store owners for good reviews. This needs further research to figure out how to reduce its effect. It's essentially a form of subversion in practice where prostitutes get positive reviews the more dangerous (i.e. STD's) they are for their more honest clients. On top of pregnancy risks.
""In some instances, you can only get high marks on performance if you perform" without using condoms or other protection, Graham said."
Back then, I didn't think about the effect recommendation systems would have outside filtering bad clients. This negative effect on positive reviews is totally believable after all the stories I've seen about people extorting eBay or Amazon store owners for good reviews. This needs further research to figure out how to reduce its effect. It's essentially a form of subversion in practice where prostitutes get positive reviews the more dangerous (i.e. STD's) they are for their more honest clients. On top of pregnancy risks.
It also seems logical that having a market in the sunlight makes a 'black market' for the same goods much less appealing.
I have to further speculate that the same type of 'impact' we see from legalizing 'recreational use' would also be mirrored with this topic; possibly to an even more positive degree.
I have to further speculate that the same type of 'impact' we see from legalizing 'recreational use' would also be mirrored with this topic; possibly to an even more positive degree.
There's idealism on both sides of the argument.
On one hand, there are those who believe that conducting these arrangements in the open is safer for all involved parties.
On the other hand, there are those who believe that sex work can never truly be consensual, because even if consent is given, a sex worker may have felt pressured to seek this life because all other choices available to them to make a living and attain food and shelter were sub-par or nonexistent. This argument supposes that given a different, idealized circumstances free of such pressures, few people would choose sex work.
I find this argument very similar to the idea of age of consent, in which society declares that people below a certain age are incapable of informed consent, and similarly, the widespread societal taboo against suicide, which implicitly suggests that no rational person free of undue pressures would consent to ending their own life, therefore anyone who commits suicide was pushed to do so by serious factors that impaired their ability to properly consent.
Finally, there are those who just want to be 'tough on crime', and actions like this fit the bill at first blush, while letting it operate would be construed by the same population as inaction.
On one hand, there are those who believe that conducting these arrangements in the open is safer for all involved parties.
On the other hand, there are those who believe that sex work can never truly be consensual, because even if consent is given, a sex worker may have felt pressured to seek this life because all other choices available to them to make a living and attain food and shelter were sub-par or nonexistent. This argument supposes that given a different, idealized circumstances free of such pressures, few people would choose sex work.
I find this argument very similar to the idea of age of consent, in which society declares that people below a certain age are incapable of informed consent, and similarly, the widespread societal taboo against suicide, which implicitly suggests that no rational person free of undue pressures would consent to ending their own life, therefore anyone who commits suicide was pushed to do so by serious factors that impaired their ability to properly consent.
Finally, there are those who just want to be 'tough on crime', and actions like this fit the bill at first blush, while letting it operate would be construed by the same population as inaction.
> there are those who believe that sex work can never truly be consensual...idealized circumstances free of such pressures, few people would choose sex work
In idealized circumstances free of economic pressures many of us would spent all day at the beach. It's great many found their dream career and are getting paid to do what they love. But for most what work is just work, a means to an end. Not sure why sex workers should be especially singled out and stigmatized. Would the janitor who cleaned the toilets in your office be doing that if they weren't getting paid to? Would you even be in said office if you weren't getting paid to be there?
In idealized circumstances free of economic pressures many of us would spent all day at the beach. It's great many found their dream career and are getting paid to do what they love. But for most what work is just work, a means to an end. Not sure why sex workers should be especially singled out and stigmatized. Would the janitor who cleaned the toilets in your office be doing that if they weren't getting paid to? Would you even be in said office if you weren't getting paid to be there?
Anyone can be a janitor, it is a lot harder to be a male prostitute (at scale).
[deleted]
No one should feel shame at having a toilet at the office and needing to pay someone to help clean it.
Everyone should feel shame at coercing a person who would otherwise not have sex with them into having sex with them. Buying someone's labor is different than buying their bodily autonomy and consent to sex.
Everyone should feel shame at coercing a person who would otherwise not have sex with them into having sex with them. Buying someone's labor is different than buying their bodily autonomy and consent to sex.
You have a strange definition of "coercing"
This isnt rape, it's just paying for an exchange. If a person doesn't want to use their body, they're free not to. Manual labor also involves using your body with wear and tear, it's not that different or special.
This isnt rape, it's just paying for an exchange. If a person doesn't want to use their body, they're free not to. Manual labor also involves using your body with wear and tear, it's not that different or special.
If that's the fiction you need to tell yourself to avoid feeling shame at condoning the use of prostitutes, I guess I can't really stop you.
The sex workers don't care about your morals. They have different morals than you and care about different things. Stop telling them and other people what morals they should have.
Regulated prostitution may be bad in your eyes but unregulated prostitution is even worse for those who are already in this industry.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Regulated prostitution may be bad in your eyes but unregulated prostitution is even worse for those who are already in this industry.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
The heart of the matter is simple: if you buy the services of a prostitute, you have little means of knowing his/her backstory. She may be doing this willingly, or she may have been coerced. So you are willingly taking the risk that you're raping somebody.
The conclusion is that it is an immoral act to visit a prostitute. And that's all you need to know really.
Oh and here's another dirty little secret for you: a good percentage of the customers do it exactly because they LIKE the rapey aspect of it. The world is a darker place than you may prefer to believe.
The conclusion is that it is an immoral act to visit a prostitute. And that's all you need to know really.
Oh and here's another dirty little secret for you: a good percentage of the customers do it exactly because they LIKE the rapey aspect of it. The world is a darker place than you may prefer to believe.
I don't think so. I have 2 close friends who used to be prostitutes, and I'm pretty sure both of them would eye-roll hard at this. All you're doing is willfully choosing the focus on the dark instances, regardless of their actual prevalence, and try to claim that the whole picture is like that across the board.
[deleted]
Only because it's all illegal. If prostitution was legal, you could go to a well-reputed bordello where the managers are known, and know that everyone in there is doing it consensually.
I'm sure the owners would be happy to provide background checks for all employees, if it gets the police out of their business.
I'm sure the owners would be happy to provide background checks for all employees, if it gets the police out of their business.
We have a perfectly good approach already; it's called the Nordic model. Arrest johns, not prostitutes.
And there are thousands of former sex workers that will give you an earful about what you think you know about prostitution and what prostitutes think.
And there are thousands of former sex workers that will give you an earful about what you think you know about prostitution and what prostitutes think.
I know several sex workers personally, and regularly sit on the sidelines of their discussions when they talk about their work in sex-positive spaces. I can assure you that all of them would prefer that it were a lot easier to perform their job without fear of the police, or of losing their home, or of the stigma from friends and family.
They also have a tendency to wish that people who didn't want to be in their line of work didn't have to be in their line of work. So why not actually try to solve that problem - reach out to individuals, listen to them, and help them achieve their goals - instead of trying to tell people what they want and don't want? The only reason I can think of is that that doesn't allow you to force your morality on people.
They also have a tendency to wish that people who didn't want to be in their line of work didn't have to be in their line of work. So why not actually try to solve that problem - reach out to individuals, listen to them, and help them achieve their goals - instead of trying to tell people what they want and don't want? The only reason I can think of is that that doesn't allow you to force your morality on people.
> So why not actually try to solve that problem - reach out to individuals, listen to them, and help them achieve their goals
I do. I reach out to would-be purchasers of sex and those who would defend them, and point out the dire consequences of their approach. Economic transfer doesn't suddenly make rape something one should aspire to or tolerate.
I do. I reach out to would-be purchasers of sex and those who would defend them, and point out the dire consequences of their approach. Economic transfer doesn't suddenly make rape something one should aspire to or tolerate.
I was talking about sex workers. The ones you're not listening to.
Edit: Specifically, if the goal is to help sex workers who want help, the solution is... to help sex workers who want help. It's to perform research into the barriers to seeking help, and try to remove those barriers. It's not to prevent consensual trade between a person who has few issues with their job, and someone seeking their services.
If, on the other hand, the goal is to eradicate sex work against the wishes of those sex workers for reasons of morality, punishing people who participate in it is a wonderful idea.
Edit: Specifically, if the goal is to help sex workers who want help, the solution is... to help sex workers who want help. It's to perform research into the barriers to seeking help, and try to remove those barriers. It's not to prevent consensual trade between a person who has few issues with their job, and someone seeking their services.
If, on the other hand, the goal is to eradicate sex work against the wishes of those sex workers for reasons of morality, punishing people who participate in it is a wonderful idea.
Ah, the Nordic model... The country in the middle bans prostitution and offloads it to the neighboring countries. I have yet to see any macro advantage on it, besides a little reduction and a lot of smug people feeling better about themselves.
A while ago I spent quite some time researching the prostitution thing, trying to make up my mind about it. I remember the UN report on global trafficking[1] being specially enlightening. The conclusions I took from it:
-Prohibition doesn't work. It just drives the prostitution underground, and as the pimps are already doing something illegal they don't mind going the extra mile, make it straightforward slavery and abuse the women so much than they are too terrified to escape. A small country (like Sweden) can offload the prostitution to nearby countries, but if all Europe were to do that the consequences would probably be really dire for a lot of women.
-Full legality increases human trafficking. As there is a lot of legal prostitution going on, it's easier to get away with the trafficking. In Europe usually takes the shape of organized crime importing awful lot of women from western Europe to Holland and Germany. Long term, it's thought to increase the well being of prostitutes, both imported and local, but we still have to grok how to do it without make it without the traffic.
-Not legal nor illegal. This is the situation in most countries, and the implementations vary wildly. In some countries the police does not intervene at all and it's a cesspool of mafias fighting for control, others make it a tourist attraction, while others haven't made it legal but don't prosecute the prostitutes. Curiously enough, this last approach is the one that gets the best results at stopping exploitative human trafficking as long as pimping is really prosecuted, don't remember anyone really explaining why. My guess is that in this situation large scale trafficking operations stand out much more, but who knows.
TL;DR; It's hard. Swedes are a tiny bit hypocrites in this one.
[1] http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/global-repor...
A while ago I spent quite some time researching the prostitution thing, trying to make up my mind about it. I remember the UN report on global trafficking[1] being specially enlightening. The conclusions I took from it:
-Prohibition doesn't work. It just drives the prostitution underground, and as the pimps are already doing something illegal they don't mind going the extra mile, make it straightforward slavery and abuse the women so much than they are too terrified to escape. A small country (like Sweden) can offload the prostitution to nearby countries, but if all Europe were to do that the consequences would probably be really dire for a lot of women.
-Full legality increases human trafficking. As there is a lot of legal prostitution going on, it's easier to get away with the trafficking. In Europe usually takes the shape of organized crime importing awful lot of women from western Europe to Holland and Germany. Long term, it's thought to increase the well being of prostitutes, both imported and local, but we still have to grok how to do it without make it without the traffic.
-Not legal nor illegal. This is the situation in most countries, and the implementations vary wildly. In some countries the police does not intervene at all and it's a cesspool of mafias fighting for control, others make it a tourist attraction, while others haven't made it legal but don't prosecute the prostitutes. Curiously enough, this last approach is the one that gets the best results at stopping exploitative human trafficking as long as pimping is really prosecuted, don't remember anyone really explaining why. My guess is that in this situation large scale trafficking operations stand out much more, but who knows.
TL;DR; It's hard. Swedes are a tiny bit hypocrites in this one.
[1] http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/human-trafficking/global-repor...
Indeed just having one region legalize skyrockets trafficking. Prices also go down, so prostitution becomes less attractive to locals as a way to make money which means foreigners in poor countries have to be imported, which leads to trafficking rings. Vice claims of the 500k prostitutes in Germany two-third's are foreign http://www.vice.com/read/a-visit-to-one-of-germanys-all-you-...
It's extremely difficult to stop gangsters from trafficking because they operate in the trafficked persons home country as well, so if you run to the police in Germany or Canada they can seek retribution on your family members back home in Ukraine, Vietnam ect. Thus the not legal nor illegal does a good balance of preventing super brothels opening up full of imported sex workers while at the same time being able to arrest pimps without relying on the testimony of the sex workers.
It's extremely difficult to stop gangsters from trafficking because they operate in the trafficked persons home country as well, so if you run to the police in Germany or Canada they can seek retribution on your family members back home in Ukraine, Vietnam ect. Thus the not legal nor illegal does a good balance of preventing super brothels opening up full of imported sex workers while at the same time being able to arrest pimps without relying on the testimony of the sex workers.
> if all Europe were to do that the consequences would probably be really dire for a lot of women
Yes, because people who purchase sex are a scourge to women everywhere.
Yes, because people who purchase sex are a scourge to women everywhere.
Ah, the Nordic model... That's the one where they criminalized landlords who knowingly rented to sex workers, then used that law to kick sex workers out of their homes for reporting their rapes to the police, right? The best part is that when Amnesty International took a stance against this, the sleazy slimeballs in the anti-trafficking movement accused them of making it up because those countries didn't criminalize sex workers (which technically they didn't - just everyone around them).
> the sleazy slimeballs in the anti-trafficking movement
Defending pimps and johns while calling anti-prostitution activists "sleazy slimeballs." I love it.
Defending pimps and johns while calling anti-prostitution activists "sleazy slimeballs." I love it.
Am I correct in interpreting that as you suggesting that anti-prostitution activists did not, in fact, claim that Amnesty International were making things up when they pointed out the negative outcomes of "the Nordic model" for sex workers, the people you're claiming it was supposed to protect?
Every model has trade-offs, the trade-off of the Nordic model is that clients are less willing to disclose information which makes it more difficult for sex workers to weed out violent troublemakers. Implementing the Nordic model would in some cases undo some recent advances in identifying and blocking these ugly clients and result in some workers being violently abused or even possibly killed.
Don't go thinking there is a silver bullet here, all solutions somewhat suck.
Don't go thinking there is a silver bullet here, all solutions somewhat suck.
> Implementing the Nordic model would in some cases undo some recent advances in identifying and blocking these ugly clients and result in some workers being violently abused or even possibly killed.
Sorry to break the news to you: all clients are ugly clients, since they're all just fine with the idea that people's bodies are something to be bought and sold.
Sorry to break the news to you: all clients are ugly clients, since they're all just fine with the idea that people's bodies are something to be bought and sold.
So's all of capitalism - what is employment but the buying of somebody's body and mind? But I don't see people like you arguing towards the end of that, or the reduction of the circumstances which cause people to perform sex work - only reducing people's options within the framework we've already forced them to live in. I know people who have chosen sex work over a minimum wage job at McDonald's - apparently they think the sex work is less degrading, and it's much better paying.
Also, I assume you don't actually mean bodies, as that would imply you're similarly against non-sexual modelling, acting, etc etc, where people employ people directly for their bodies, to varying degrees.
Also, I assume you don't actually mean bodies, as that would imply you're similarly against non-sexual modelling, acting, etc etc, where people employ people directly for their bodies, to varying degrees.
I meant ugly as in abusive, violent or psychopathic.
That's the Nordic model where the police tell a landlord that if they don't evict their whore tenants they're profiting from prostitution, which is a crime, right?
I could say the same about your definition and motivation to "help" sex workers who don't need it or want it.
Sure, it's shameful to force someone to do something without their consent. Your interpretation of consent seems very bizarre however. Inherently anyone paying anyone else to do anything means they wouldn't have done it without getting paid. Does that mean they didn't consent?
No, it's shameful to coerce someone into having sex without their consent, not merely to coerce someone to "do something." The rest of your question is not relevant.
So it's not shameful to force someone to perform manual labor without their consent? Why not?
Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. (Community service is an alternative to jail, for example.)
Coerced sex is rape, however. It is qualitatively different from coerced labor. As Dworkin wrote a long time ago, "in prostitution, no woman stays whole. It is impossible to use a human body in the way women's bodies are used in prostitution and to have a whole human being at the end of it, or in the middle of it, or close to the beginning of it. It's impossible. And no woman gets whole again later, after."
Coerced sex is rape, however. It is qualitatively different from coerced labor. As Dworkin wrote a long time ago, "in prostitution, no woman stays whole. It is impossible to use a human body in the way women's bodies are used in prostitution and to have a whole human being at the end of it, or in the middle of it, or close to the beginning of it. It's impossible. And no woman gets whole again later, after."
It's condescending to women to tell them that what they choose to do with their bodies is not their free choice. It's deeply patronising and actually an anti female argument.
I think the actual moral problem with commercial sex is that it commodifies something that some people see as sacred. I think it turns on one's view of government as moral guardian vs individual liberty. Governments aren't usually very good moral actors, which is why we usually limit their moral policing.
I think the actual moral problem with commercial sex is that it commodifies something that some people see as sacred. I think it turns on one's view of government as moral guardian vs individual liberty. Governments aren't usually very good moral actors, which is why we usually limit their moral policing.
If it was their free choice, they wouldn't need to be paid for it, and they could be as selective or as indiscriminate as they like with partner selection and frequency. It's not about anything sacred (unless you consider basic human rights sacred, I guess).
But don't take my word for it, take former sex workers' word for it: http://www.educating-voices.com
This is feminism 101 stuff; even if you want to take the "choice feminism" side of the debate, you need to learn the basics of radical feminist critiques and positions on the issue.
But don't take my word for it, take former sex workers' word for it: http://www.educating-voices.com
This is feminism 101 stuff; even if you want to take the "choice feminism" side of the debate, you need to learn the basics of radical feminist critiques and positions on the issue.
Out of interest, what about male prostitution? Is it possible for a man to be paid for sex "and to have a whole human being at the end of it"?
I don't know. Probably not.
I suppose in a society where women were free of patriarchy and rape culture, and had full reproductive and sexual autonomy, then Dworkin's statement wouldn't even apply to women.
But that society is a fantasy, and I doubt any capitalist society could ever free women from economic exploitation of their bodies by others.
I suppose in a society where women were free of patriarchy and rape culture, and had full reproductive and sexual autonomy, then Dworkin's statement wouldn't even apply to women.
But that society is a fantasy, and I doubt any capitalist society could ever free women from economic exploitation of their bodies by others.
So if I coerce someone into cleaning my house without their consent that isn't shameful? Seems coercing someone to do anything without their consent is shameful.
If someone only consents to cleaning a house if they're paid enough money to do it that isn't "without their consent" by any definition of the word I'm aware of. It's unclear to me why sex workers should be specially called out and stigmatized.
If someone only consents to cleaning a house if they're paid enough money to do it that isn't "without their consent" by any definition of the word I'm aware of. It's unclear to me why sex workers should be specially called out and stigmatized.
The sex workers should not be called out nor stigmatized. Their patrons should be.
Based on what you've said so should the patrons of any service if the worker is providing a service they wouldn't otherwise be providing if they weren't being paid to do so.
No, because it's not a human rights violation to pay someone to clean a toilet. It is a human rights violation to pay someone for sex.
You also don't know what human rights are.
What about the porn industry? Actors being paid to have sex. Should that be legal?
What about marriage between a very rich and a very poor person, or between a citizen and a non-citizen?
What about being paid for doing drug trials? Isn't that coercion of poor people? Should this be legal?
What about marriage between a very rich and a very poor person, or between a citizen and a non-citizen?
What about being paid for doing drug trials? Isn't that coercion of poor people? Should this be legal?
Pornography is a form of prostitution and its consumers should also do a little introspection about their use of it.
Marriages usually involve many other things than sex-for-resources; it is certainly possible for economic coercion to be an aspect of marriage. It is not the defining feature of the institution, however.
Drug trials are not a more socially tolerated form of rape so they are not really relevant here.
Marriages usually involve many other things than sex-for-resources; it is certainly possible for economic coercion to be an aspect of marriage. It is not the defining feature of the institution, however.
Drug trials are not a more socially tolerated form of rape so they are not really relevant here.
So should pornography be illegal in your opinion?
How are drug trial not a form of "rape"? They are not sexual, but you are exposing your body to potential damage in exchange for money. I really don't see how that's different than prostitution, in fact I'll argue that it is worse (we can make prostition less risky, we cannot eliminate risk from drug trial).
Some people absolutely have been getting married to be able to get out of poverty, and in my book this is worse than prostitution in the sense that not only do those people have to have sex with their " client", but they also have to live with them and probably do other work such has cleaning and cooking. At least with prostitution, the contract is clearer, there are negotiated limits on what is provided for the money. I'll argue that if society had less hangups about prostitution, they'd be less of those economical marriages.
If you think that drug trial for money is more acceptable than sex for money, I think you should have a little introspection about your attitude towards sex.
How are drug trial not a form of "rape"? They are not sexual, but you are exposing your body to potential damage in exchange for money. I really don't see how that's different than prostitution, in fact I'll argue that it is worse (we can make prostition less risky, we cannot eliminate risk from drug trial).
Some people absolutely have been getting married to be able to get out of poverty, and in my book this is worse than prostitution in the sense that not only do those people have to have sex with their " client", but they also have to live with them and probably do other work such has cleaning and cooking. At least with prostitution, the contract is clearer, there are negotiated limits on what is provided for the money. I'll argue that if society had less hangups about prostitution, they'd be less of those economical marriages.
If you think that drug trial for money is more acceptable than sex for money, I think you should have a little introspection about your attitude towards sex.
> So should pornography be illegal in your opinion?
I think that very much like dangerous drugs and cigarette smoking, attacking the demand side of this issue will be more effective than outright prohibition.
> How are drug trial not a form of "rape"? They are not sexual...
... that's how they're not a form of "rape," then.
> Some people absolutely have been getting married to be able to get out of poverty, and in my book this is worse than prostitution in the sense that not only do those people have to have sex with their " client", but they also have to live with them and probably do other work such has cleaning and cooking.
Yes, that's a terrible situation as well, but it has nothing to do with how reprehensible it is to purchase sex from a prostitute.
> At least with prostitution, the contract is clearer, there are negotiated limits on what is provided for the money. I'll argue that if society had less hangups about prostitution, they'd be less of those economical marriages.
I'd argue that if a person--OK, let's call a spade a spade, a man--didn't think that their own personal and sexual gratification was more important than someone else's--OK, another spade a spade, a woman's--bodily autonomy, then there'd be both less prostitution and fewer of those marriages. And less rape, and less domestic violence, and less misery overall. But this involves convincing men to introspect about their own privilege vis-a-vis personal and sexual gratification, so it won't happen.
> If you think that drug trial for money is more acceptable than sex for money, I think you should have a little introspection about your attitude towards sex.
The danger to people participating in drug trials is far, far less than the danger to people participating in prostitution. One merely needs to look at the comparative mortality rates to ascertain that.
I think that very much like dangerous drugs and cigarette smoking, attacking the demand side of this issue will be more effective than outright prohibition.
> How are drug trial not a form of "rape"? They are not sexual...
... that's how they're not a form of "rape," then.
> Some people absolutely have been getting married to be able to get out of poverty, and in my book this is worse than prostitution in the sense that not only do those people have to have sex with their " client", but they also have to live with them and probably do other work such has cleaning and cooking.
Yes, that's a terrible situation as well, but it has nothing to do with how reprehensible it is to purchase sex from a prostitute.
> At least with prostitution, the contract is clearer, there are negotiated limits on what is provided for the money. I'll argue that if society had less hangups about prostitution, they'd be less of those economical marriages.
I'd argue that if a person--OK, let's call a spade a spade, a man--didn't think that their own personal and sexual gratification was more important than someone else's--OK, another spade a spade, a woman's--bodily autonomy, then there'd be both less prostitution and fewer of those marriages. And less rape, and less domestic violence, and less misery overall. But this involves convincing men to introspect about their own privilege vis-a-vis personal and sexual gratification, so it won't happen.
> If you think that drug trial for money is more acceptable than sex for money, I think you should have a little introspection about your attitude towards sex.
The danger to people participating in drug trials is far, far less than the danger to people participating in prostitution. One merely needs to look at the comparative mortality rates to ascertain that.
> that's a terrible situation as well, but it has nothing to do with how reprehensible it is to purchase sex from a prostitute.
If you take "morality" out of the picture, there is no difference, one is selling a one time sexual act for a negotiated amount, the other is selling a lifetime of sex + work for food and shelter. Both are economical deals. The difference is purely the spin one's willing to put on them, in other word, opinions, we obviously disagree, no point arguing further.
> if a man didn't think that their own personal and sexual gratification was more important than a woman's bodily autonomy
What you describe is rape, where there is no consent. If two adults agree to have sex, society should not be concerned on why, and not interfere.
Different people have different level of hormones and sexual needs. Saying things like "people should be less sexual" is not going to solve any problem.
> The danger to people participating in drug trials is far, far less than the danger to people participating in prostitution.
Because society has made prostitution illegal and is not giving the same level of protection to prostitutes as to other citizens. Prostitution should be regulated and made safe.
If you take "morality" out of the picture, there is no difference, one is selling a one time sexual act for a negotiated amount, the other is selling a lifetime of sex + work for food and shelter. Both are economical deals. The difference is purely the spin one's willing to put on them, in other word, opinions, we obviously disagree, no point arguing further.
> if a man didn't think that their own personal and sexual gratification was more important than a woman's bodily autonomy
What you describe is rape, where there is no consent. If two adults agree to have sex, society should not be concerned on why, and not interfere.
Different people have different level of hormones and sexual needs. Saying things like "people should be less sexual" is not going to solve any problem.
> The danger to people participating in drug trials is far, far less than the danger to people participating in prostitution.
Because society has made prostitution illegal and is not giving the same level of protection to prostitutes as to other citizens. Prostitution should be regulated and made safe.
> Saying things like "people should be less sexual" is not going to solve any problem.
Who said anything like that? All I'm saying is that people should not exploit other people for sex. If they do, then they should feel ashamed. The rest of us should not feel impelled to defend people that do exploit other people for sex, whether they use violence or economic disadvantage to do so.
> Because society has made prostitution illegal and is not giving the same level of protection to prostitutes as to other citizens. Prostitution should be regulated and made safe.
That's just not true; even in countries which have decriminalized or legalized prostitution, a prostitute's life is much more fraught with peril than people participating in drug trials.
Who said anything like that? All I'm saying is that people should not exploit other people for sex. If they do, then they should feel ashamed. The rest of us should not feel impelled to defend people that do exploit other people for sex, whether they use violence or economic disadvantage to do so.
> Because society has made prostitution illegal and is not giving the same level of protection to prostitutes as to other citizens. Prostitution should be regulated and made safe.
That's just not true; even in countries which have decriminalized or legalized prostitution, a prostitute's life is much more fraught with peril than people participating in drug trials.
This sounds more like a moral judgement. Labor is labor, you don't get to redefine labor just because it involves an action which is very controversial.
What really matters is the safety of the person(s) involved. And yet, there are plenty of occupations where safety is in question.
What really matters is the safety of the person(s) involved. And yet, there are plenty of occupations where safety is in question.
It is precisely a moral judgement. Moral judgements are a human responsibility.
The question is whether or not we want to be a society that views people's bodies and sexual access to them as a commodity to be bought and sold. I find it baffling that anyone would laud this condition after giving it a few moments of compassionate reflection.
The question is whether or not we want to be a society that views people's bodies and sexual access to them as a commodity to be bought and sold. I find it baffling that anyone would laud this condition after giving it a few moments of compassionate reflection.
Consider the possibility that a few moments of compassionate reflection have lead Alice to conclude that when Bob says he loves what he does, it's not because Mallory is forcing him to say that.
It's all well and good to say that it's against your own morals, but as soon as you start defending that on the basis of the consequences, you're conceding the "but it's just morally wrong!" argument. And in general, we (okay, at least I, as I can believe that you wouldn't necessarily agree here) laud societies that have transitioned from deontological to consequentialist ethics.
It's all well and good to say that it's against your own morals, but as soon as you start defending that on the basis of the consequences, you're conceding the "but it's just morally wrong!" argument. And in general, we (okay, at least I, as I can believe that you wouldn't necessarily agree here) laud societies that have transitioned from deontological to consequentialist ethics.
> And in general, we (okay, at least I, as I can believe that you wouldn't necessarily agree here) laud societies that have transitioned from deontological to consequentialist ethics.
If you want to get all academic about it, I am coming from a position of virtue ethics, which is why I am focused on the vicious men who purchase sex, and to a lesser extent other people who are explicitly or implicitly defending those men's actions.
If you want to get all academic about it, I am coming from a position of virtue ethics, which is why I am focused on the vicious men who purchase sex, and to a lesser extent other people who are explicitly or implicitly defending those men's actions.
So one happy prostitute is worth a thousand unhappy prostitutes, gotcha.
[Sorry, ninja edited underneath you.]
And all the more if it's a billion prostitutes in an eternity of misery supported by a malevolent AI!
Alternatively, Alice could consider the possibility that Bob is not, in fact, an idiot.
And all the more if it's a billion prostitutes in an eternity of misery supported by a malevolent AI!
Alternatively, Alice could consider the possibility that Bob is not, in fact, an idiot.
[deleted]
Coercion requires threats or force. Do you think all prostitution involves threats or force?
And wouldn't autonomy include the freedom to do with your body as you see fit?
And wouldn't autonomy include the freedom to do with your body as you see fit?
The threat of loss of home, food, or family due to insufficient means is indeed coercive.
If it were about freedom, you would see people of all economic conditions choosing to prostitute themselves. But you don't.
If it were about freedom, you would see people of all economic conditions choosing to prostitute themselves. But you don't.
Don't you? The past few years have seen a spate of "high-class call girl" memoirs. Unless you want to make the novel claim they're all fabricated, or try somehow to argue they are negligible, that would seem to suggest that your second claim here is not accurate.
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/19/my_lessons_in_prostitution_h...
"People who see prostitution as something which exists on a number of different, exclusive and distinct class-related levels are people who do not understand the interrelated nature of it, and some of the people ignorant of the shifting nature of prostitution are actually prostitutes and prostitutors themselves."
"People who see prostitution as something which exists on a number of different, exclusive and distinct class-related levels are people who do not understand the interrelated nature of it, and some of the people ignorant of the shifting nature of prostitution are actually prostitutes and prostitutors themselves."
>some of the people ignorant of the shifting nature of prostitution are actually prostitutes and prostitutors themselves
Sounds awful paternalistic. Have you considered the possibility that people who make choices you disagree with have agency?
Sounds awful paternalistic. Have you considered the possibility that people who make choices you disagree with have agency?
Absolutely, which is why I would like to hold people who choose to purchase sex accountable for their human rights violations. They have agency; they have the choice not to purchase sex and yet they do so anyway.
If you're deliberately misinterpreting my post, we're done. If you're not, I see no point in engaging further with you.
Once again, if only for the peanut gallery: you are asserting that no sex workers have agency in the matter of their employment. Yes or no?
Once again, if only for the peanut gallery: you are asserting that no sex workers have agency in the matter of their employment. Yes or no?
By that logic, me going to work is slavery. Also, there are people who sincerely believe that women can't consent to sex with men, full stop, for basically similar reasons to what you wrote. You're probably playing devil's advocate, but I really think these bizarre ideas about consent are rooted in a damaged psychology that has a very unhealthy view of both women's agency, and the relationship between the sexes.
> On the other hand, there are those who believe that sex work can never truly be consensual
Discussion about sex work is always interesting. Sex workers are so often left out of the discussion about their own lives. How about we listen to what the sex workers want?
Here in Australia, sex workers are completely on the side of decriminalisation.
Discussion about sex work is always interesting. Sex workers are so often left out of the discussion about their own lives. How about we listen to what the sex workers want?
Here in Australia, sex workers are completely on the side of decriminalisation.
This is of course entirely by design -- liberal opponents of sex work have to rely on automatically, by definition denying agency to any sex worker who disagrees ("she is brainwashed/has internalized oppression/..., therefore her arguments cannot be considered, let us see what this ex-worker has to say") -- otherwise the illusion of compassion that they work so hard on creating would instantly evaporate.
It is really quite infuriating -- to me personally much more so than the conservative opponents position, which while equally repugnant in terms of actions implied, at least leaves some scope for respectfully disagreeing: it does not bother me to be called sinful, or evil, or immoral by someone else's moral code (surely all of us are quite immoral by /someone's/ moral code), but I would consider it deeply offensive to have my opinion about my own life dismissed out of hand.
It is really quite infuriating -- to me personally much more so than the conservative opponents position, which while equally repugnant in terms of actions implied, at least leaves some scope for respectfully disagreeing: it does not bother me to be called sinful, or evil, or immoral by someone else's moral code (surely all of us are quite immoral by /someone's/ moral code), but I would consider it deeply offensive to have my opinion about my own life dismissed out of hand.
> On the other hand, there are those who believe that sex work can never truly be consensual, because even if consent is given, a sex worker may have felt pressured to seek this life because all other choices available to them to make a living and attain food and shelter were sub-par or nonexistent. This argument supposes that given a different, idealized circumstances free of such pressures, few people would choose sex work.
Oh no, those poor people, the best option they have is sex work!
I know, let's make their best option illegal! That will certainly improve their lives!
/s
Oh no, those poor people, the best option they have is sex work!
I know, let's make their best option illegal! That will certainly improve their lives!
/s
I think mutual consent and money for sex are probably fine.
The problem is that reality isn't black and white. Trafficking is very real, especially in Chinese communities, where victims are shuffled all over the place on cheap intercity busses.
These are complex problems, and the typical HN lazze faire approach doesn't address that complexity.
The problem is that reality isn't black and white. Trafficking is very real, especially in Chinese communities, where victims are shuffled all over the place on cheap intercity busses.
These are complex problems, and the typical HN lazze faire approach doesn't address that complexity.
Can you provide information about this? I've seen reporting about restaurant and salon workers bussing around, but it was largely voluntary.
Voluntary in the sense that people are working off some "debt" owed to smugglers that can never be repaid.
Chinatown busses are a snake pit of all sorts of crime. Here's an article that scratches the surface. There are numerous sources in the news and academic publications about the links to sex and other human trafficking to these busses.
http://news.wgbh.org/post/human-trafficking-modern-day-slave...
Chinatown busses are a snake pit of all sorts of crime. Here's an article that scratches the surface. There are numerous sources in the news and academic publications about the links to sex and other human trafficking to these busses.
http://news.wgbh.org/post/human-trafficking-modern-day-slave...
Trafficking of farm and construction workers is very real, too, and probably more prevalent.
You are right, these are indeed complex problems, however this is no directed effort against this type of activity.
If anything, having a common platform would make it easier to focus on such things, and I suspect platform owners would gladly cooperate (as they probably would on weeding out underage ads, etc.) -- but in practice, the alternative we see is either going for low-hanging fruit (which these relatively complex operations aren't), or just a blanket effort, like in this case.
All of these hurt legitimate workers far more than the operations you describe.
If anything, having a common platform would make it easier to focus on such things, and I suspect platform owners would gladly cooperate (as they probably would on weeding out underage ads, etc.) -- but in practice, the alternative we see is either going for low-hanging fruit (which these relatively complex operations aren't), or just a blanket effort, like in this case.
All of these hurt legitimate workers far more than the operations you describe.
Same could be said for the legalisation of drugs. Central online repository, good for research.
The worst case scenario will be a website where it is very hard to impossible for law enforcement to scrape or retrieve phone numbers from and prostitution is blended in with normal activity. Turns out it already exists: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter.
In the Craigslist/Newmark case, what one of the State Attorneys said was, "We don't care about a benefit. We'll just keep prosecuting until all of the sites are shut down."
Newmark made the same case as the parent commend, but that was the last thing the last thing the law wanted to hear since they are prosecutors, not social workers.
Newmark made the same case as the parent commend, but that was the last thing the last thing the law wanted to hear since they are prosecutors, not social workers.
Instagram, Snapchat and Tumblr are full of escort ads, so is 'fetlife' which is basically a prositution social media site for people in that scene. Then there's all the porn sites with escorts uploading videos of themselves like XVideos and shilling their services. Nobody is going after Instagram's CEO for allowing #gfe or #(city)escort hashtags.
Backpages seemed like a good police tool in that they could entrap politically connected people with fake prostitution ads, and they could identify organized prositution more easily. For example here it was simple to find the gangster listings running microbrothels, these are condos rented by street gangs who import girls from Asia, seize their passports and pimp them out. These gangs were also well known to rob each other's micros, and there are plenty of stories on all those escort review forums of armed gangsters kicking down the door and jacking the place since police won't be called.
Selective law enforcement again happening here so the Backpages CEO guy must have made political statements advocating for legalization or was politically active in some other way. It's my main theory why Redbook was shutdown, because they entertained very loud activists in their forums calling for legalization who often called out city and state politicians directly. Reminder if you want to run an illegal business don't be politically active and you can operate under the radar like Fetlife with it's thousands of escort ads.
Backpages seemed like a good police tool in that they could entrap politically connected people with fake prostitution ads, and they could identify organized prositution more easily. For example here it was simple to find the gangster listings running microbrothels, these are condos rented by street gangs who import girls from Asia, seize their passports and pimp them out. These gangs were also well known to rob each other's micros, and there are plenty of stories on all those escort review forums of armed gangsters kicking down the door and jacking the place since police won't be called.
Selective law enforcement again happening here so the Backpages CEO guy must have made political statements advocating for legalization or was politically active in some other way. It's my main theory why Redbook was shutdown, because they entertained very loud activists in their forums calling for legalization who often called out city and state politicians directly. Reminder if you want to run an illegal business don't be politically active and you can operate under the radar like Fetlife with it's thousands of escort ads.
With hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue per year, I guess they should have donated more to the relevant Attorney Generals' campaign funds. My best wishes to all of the victims in this article.
Question: If Bernie Madoff had advertised his pyramid scheme in, say, the New York Times, can the paper be held responsible for subsequent losses suffered by those who took up the offer made in the advert?
Is this case legally similar, or do the specific crimes of human trafficking make it different? You know, sort of like how contracts are ordinarily enforceable, but if I agree to marry off my 12-year-old daughter to you, that "contract" is not enforceable.
Is this case legally similar, or do the specific crimes of human trafficking make it different? You know, sort of like how contracts are ordinarily enforceable, but if I agree to marry off my 12-year-old daughter to you, that "contract" is not enforceable.
The basic rule is contracts cannot override the law.
The real question is: to what degree are providers of platforms (such as ad agencies and newspapers that publish ads) responsible for checking the lawfulness of the content that is published through them?
And is it consistent for the different kinds of platform?
And is it consistent for the different kinds of platform?
I wish there were a good way to separate out coerced or human trafficking (which I believe is less common in the medium to high end US prostitution market) from the morally objectionable stuff. Arguably the way to do that is by providing a "clean" alternative, either "good"/safe/consensual prostitution, or just really high quality vr/robotic/immersive porn. It's really hard for me to find fault with someone deciding to have sex with other adults for $200-500+/hr vs. working in a slaughterhouse or call center or something for $8-15/hr.
> One of the advertisers, identified only as 15-year-old "E.S.," ''was forced into prostitution at the age of 13 by her pimp," according to an affidavit filed with the complaint. She used other online advertising services until they were shut down, the court filing says, when she turned to Backpage.
This reads horribly: the feds took down multiple sites and knew about this 15-year-old, but didn't manage to reach her in the process?
This reads horribly: the feds took down multiple sites and knew about this 15-year-old, but didn't manage to reach her in the process?
It was my impression that sites like Backpage were massive "honey pots" that feds and local law enforcement used to contain and frequently thwart illicit activities such as prostitution. It seems like they are taken down at arbitrary times afterwards either after their usefulness as a law enforcement mechanism has diminished and, slight tin foil hat here, whenever an agency needs a "big bust" for political purposes. Go figure many are hurt in the process.
Is the distinction between this page and the kind of things posted on craigslist, strictly that the posters had to pay to list their ads? Or do prostitutes not post on craigslist? AFAIK Newmark hasn't had to deal with any of this.
I'd be interested to know if there is something similar and legal in countries that allow prostitution (Netherlands?). Seems like they were making a lot of revenue for what is basically illegal ads - so a legal version would do even better I would imagine. Though I suppose the pricing would drop if it were legal.
I'd be interested to know if there is something similar and legal in countries that allow prostitution (Netherlands?). Seems like they were making a lot of revenue for what is basically illegal ads - so a legal version would do even better I would imagine. Though I suppose the pricing would drop if it were legal.
I posted a new thread w/ the NYT link [1], [2] because it had this helpful tidbit:
A congressional investigation this year found that the website changed some of its adult classifieds to conceal the fact that the advertisements were for sex acts with minors. Mr. Ferrer was subpoenaed by a Senate subcommittee last fall to answer questions about reported child sex-trafficking ads, but he did not show up.
Found to be covering up child sex trafficking by Congress and you just blow them off and don't change anything? That's the point where getting arrested shouldn't be much of a surprise.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/carl-ferrer-backpage-ce... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12658053
A congressional investigation this year found that the website changed some of its adult classifieds to conceal the fact that the advertisements were for sex acts with minors. Mr. Ferrer was subpoenaed by a Senate subcommittee last fall to answer questions about reported child sex-trafficking ads, but he did not show up.
Found to be covering up child sex trafficking by Congress and you just blow them off and don't change anything? That's the point where getting arrested shouldn't be much of a surprise.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/carl-ferrer-backpage-ce... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12658053
The website changed some of its adult clasifieds to conceal the fact that they were for sex acts with minors, or the people posting them changed them? Because one of these seems an awful lot more likely than the other, and I don't see how Congress could honestly have determined that the site itself did it. I suspect that someone's arguing that banning adverts for child sex is in fact concealing them because people work around the bans, but it's hard to find any information on the actual basis of this claim.
Of note, it also seems that Backpage did report suspected child sex trafficking to the NCMEC, based on a statement by the NCMEC to Congress in 2015.[1] This appears to have been one of the things used against them, with the congressional reports mentioning the large proportion of reports that involved Backpage as proof that they were a child sex trafficking ring while omitting that they were the ones doing the reporting.
[1] http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/?id=B087F957-02BD-4F58-...
Of note, it also seems that Backpage did report suspected child sex trafficking to the NCMEC, based on a statement by the NCMEC to Congress in 2015.[1] This appears to have been one of the things used against them, with the congressional reports mentioning the large proportion of reports that involved Backpage as proof that they were a child sex trafficking ring while omitting that they were the ones doing the reporting.
[1] http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/?id=B087F957-02BD-4F58-...
Congressional comments from when Backpage was held in contempt:
> Our investigation showed that Backpage “edits” advertisements before posting them, by removing certain words, phrases, or images. For instance, they might remove a word or image that makes clear that sexual services are being offered for money. And then they would post this “sanitized” version of the ad. While this editing changes nothing about the underlying transaction, it tends to conceal the evidence of illegality. In other words, Backpage’s editing procedures, far from being an effective anti-trafficking measure, only served to sanitize the ads of illegal content to an outside viewer.
Turns out NCMEC showed up for the hearing that Backpage skipped, and didn't have many nice things to say about Backpage.
> “You see, it is sometimes hard to square Backpage’s public statements about its business practices with the reality on the ground. For example, the National Center recently was searching for a child who went missing – and is still missing – and found that she appeared in a sex advertisement on Backpage. That is sadly common. But what made this case even more incredible was that the Backpage ad actually contained a missing child poster of that same child. That poster had the child’s real name, real age, real picture, and the date she went missing. The other pictures in the ad included topless photos. We’d certainly like to know what supposedly market-leading screening and moderation procedures missed that one.
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/me...
> Our investigation showed that Backpage “edits” advertisements before posting them, by removing certain words, phrases, or images. For instance, they might remove a word or image that makes clear that sexual services are being offered for money. And then they would post this “sanitized” version of the ad. While this editing changes nothing about the underlying transaction, it tends to conceal the evidence of illegality. In other words, Backpage’s editing procedures, far from being an effective anti-trafficking measure, only served to sanitize the ads of illegal content to an outside viewer.
Turns out NCMEC showed up for the hearing that Backpage skipped, and didn't have many nice things to say about Backpage.
> “You see, it is sometimes hard to square Backpage’s public statements about its business practices with the reality on the ground. For example, the National Center recently was searching for a child who went missing – and is still missing – and found that she appeared in a sex advertisement on Backpage. That is sadly common. But what made this case even more incredible was that the Backpage ad actually contained a missing child poster of that same child. That poster had the child’s real name, real age, real picture, and the date she went missing. The other pictures in the ad included topless photos. We’d certainly like to know what supposedly market-leading screening and moderation procedures missed that one.
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/me...
NYT actually got the charges correct. The article in the above thread is incorrect about trafficking charges. It was conspiracy and pimping a minor.
Link to full complaint: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/F...
Link to full complaint: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press_releases/F...
Ah, that changes everything about this. I can't believe anyone would skip that detail when writing about this.
Either they didn't know, or are trying to spin the story a certain way
Craigslist had a section, and shut it down.
http://gawker.com/5630687/your-post-craigslist-guide-to-buyi...
Edit: Newmark has had to deal with it. Check here for more; http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2...
http://gawker.com/5630687/your-post-craigslist-guide-to-buyi...
Edit: Newmark has had to deal with it. Check here for more; http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2...
There is a yelp for prostitution, aptly situated at hookers.nl; they might also have ads, I don't know (and I don't want to try from a corporate network). I feel I should add here that I know about the existence of this website because a number of years ago a somewhat famous politician was forced to resign, partly because of his posting history on that website, so at the time it was widely talked about in mainstream media.
There have been a couple shut down in the US, at least one of which allowed both prostitutes and clients to review each other. Which probably made the business safer for everyone involved.
Prostitution is legal in New Zealand as well. If you were to do a search for - new zealand girls - I bet you might find an example of what you are looking for. Said example might even advertise on the radio in New Zealand.
A guess: fta, 99% of revenue was from sex ads.
I don't think there's a bright line, but craigslist is a many-faceted business that has a small percentage of revenue from prostitution. Backpages is just a prostitution marketplace.
I don't think there's a bright line, but craigslist is a many-faceted business that has a small percentage of revenue from prostitution. Backpages is just a prostitution marketplace.
Unless Craigslist has changed their model 0% is from prostitution since I think they only charge for house and job listings.
Because they struck a deal with governments in the us to stop making money from sex ads....
The short term memory is strong in this thread
The short term memory is strong in this thread
Looks like they started charging in 2008 and then pulled the ads entirely in 2010. I think the article I read on their business model was prior to 2008. Or after.
[deleted]
CL was charging fees for a while at least
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2008/nov/29/craigslist-works-beh...
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2008/nov/29/craigslist-works-beh...
I'm confused and I'm not a lawyer. Isn't this interstate commerce and therefore the purview of federal authorities? Why is CA leading a felony investigation for a supposed crime that happened over the Internet?
It's important to understand that this arrest is happening in concert with a major operation to disrupt sex trafficking rings outside of Backpage specifically.
http://www.startribune.com/feds-to-announce-bust-of-global-s...
Neither article mentions specific coordination, but considering the arrests happened on the same day, I'm imagining that there must have been some coordination in the investigations.
http://www.startribune.com/feds-to-announce-bust-of-global-s...
Neither article mentions specific coordination, but considering the arrests happened on the same day, I'm imagining that there must have been some coordination in the investigations.
As someone who recently built a project (http://www.aphex.cx/iconoclast-a-child-prostitution-hunter/) to find this exact stuff, I'm glad to see action taken against Backpage. Pimping kids out should be hard.
how does that work?
One of the sections in his post is literally "how does it work"..
[deleted]
The first definition of "pimping" they provide, "making money off of prostitutes", seems to encompass anything from a gas station allowing the corner whores to buy cigarettes to an NGO with a grant for "rescuing" them.
If BP goes down, this is a huge opportunity for another site. Just like it was for BP when CL closed their section. Who is positioned to fill the void?
The real criminals are the people making prostitution illegal
There really is only one appropriate solution for this and that is universal basic income.
I love the concept of UBI as a way to offset jobs lost due to automation, but I have no clue how people think it is supposed to become a replacement for other forms of welfare.
In Australia, our welfare system pays around $250/week and it's about the right amount to live on without starving or being kicked out of your house. We have 24 million people. To pay them all $250/week we'd have to spend $312B/year.
Our entire current federal budget is $450B/year.
I don't see how this works. Not in the slightest. Even if we used all the current allocation for welfare (~120B) and cut out all the administrative overhead that's only ~$100/week. Nowhere near enough to live on.
I can't speak for America or elsewhere, but a UBI here would be enough to stop anyone from taking up prostitution to support themselves. Not even close.
In Australia, our welfare system pays around $250/week and it's about the right amount to live on without starving or being kicked out of your house. We have 24 million people. To pay them all $250/week we'd have to spend $312B/year.
Our entire current federal budget is $450B/year.
I don't see how this works. Not in the slightest. Even if we used all the current allocation for welfare (~120B) and cut out all the administrative overhead that's only ~$100/week. Nowhere near enough to live on.
I can't speak for America or elsewhere, but a UBI here would be enough to stop anyone from taking up prostitution to support themselves. Not even close.
This really ignores the reality of sex trafficking. Sure, sometimes you become a prostitute because you need money for you or your family, but much of the time it's against your will[See 1, page 13 PP 3]. A universal basic income will not solve that. A UBI may help a prostitute get out of their profession, because many do want to leave and money is a large concern[See 1, page 14 PP 1], but that still ignores other issues such as health issues e.g. STDs and addiction to drugs.
1: See https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238796.pdf
1: See https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238796.pdf
Is there any source for your partition estimation?