Posted March 20, 2016 Recently the Senate voted 96-0 in favor of a resolution to authorize the legal action against Backpage.com for sex trafficking. Senator Portman: "Traffickers have found refuge and new customers through websites that specialize in advertising 'ordinary' prostitution and lawful escort services." Full article here: http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/senate-votes-pursue-contempt-sex-trafficking-probe 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 20, 2016 Another example of lying hypocrisy. How many of these "righteous statesmen" have mistresses or are seeing providers on the side. They are doing this under the guise of protecting us from "sex trafficking". Not saying that traffficking doesn't occur on BP, but I think its exaggerated to a large extent. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 20, 2016 Is BackPage the most visible website (reaching the largest audience) on which sex trafficking occurs? Probably. Right there next to the employment ads, the automotive ads, the real estate ads, and the dating classifieds is the adult section with ads for escorts, strippers, etc. Anybody who uses BP for conventional commerce sees this. BP also is a national brand, much like Craigslist. Most other websites dealing with prostitution are niche markets, like TOB, hidden from plain view; you don't see them unless you go looking for them. There are likely websites devoted to sex trafficking (or /snip/ activities); I don't really know because it's not my bag. Are these activities advertised on BP? Probably, but I doubt it's >5% of the adult section, though it could be higher if you consider pimped ladies as being trafficked. Still, considering the wide presence of BP, the total could be significant. Is it something w/in BPO's control? Probably not w/o eliminating the adult section all together, like Craigslist did. But then this advertising activity just moves to other venues, either disguised as legitimate dating on BP & CL, or to the previously mentioned websites in the shadows. But that's fine with Congress because all they really want is to get credit for removing that <sarcasm>nasty sex stuff</sarcasm> from the public eye. I believe Congress is also trying to drum up support for the 2016 SAVE Act, which attacks advertising sexual services. If they're were serious about human trafficking, they would be looking at other industries (garment, agriculture, domestic help, etc.) and tighter border control. But that 1) wouldn't get them the headlines they crave, or 2) would hurt their contributors' business. (*) Sex trafficking is but a portion of the human trafficking industry. (*) Perhaps we as a group should tax ourselves and make major contributions to favorable political campaigns. Become an economic force to be reckoned with. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 21, 2016 Back in the late 90s, Napster was the place to go to download free shit. Limewire was good, too. They were both much more user friendly than the niche usenet sites. They had their drawbacks, too. What you downloaded might be a virus instead of the latest Snoop Dogg hit. The music industry went at them hard, suing them into oblivion, creating legislation to support the effort, and essentially destroyed Napster. Today, you can get on any torrent site and download everything you can think of. Public trackers will get any mainstream movie, music, or tv show you want to see, while private 'niche' trackers can help you find more obscure stuff. Rather than killing pirating, the attacks inspired innovation to get around the legislation and increase the privacy of users. So it will go with this. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 21, 2016 7 hours ago, Bit Banger said: (*) Perhaps we as a group should tax ourselves and make major contributions to favorable political campaigns. Become an economic force to be reckoned with. You're stoned my tax liability was already + $50K 2015, a lot of gals don't even file, let alone health insurance. I figure we're already a economic force to be reckoned with. I mean I get it, but as with anything we cannot save the world. My 2 cents is all. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 21, 2016 16 hours ago, Bit Banger said: ... (*) Perhaps we as a group should tax ourselves and make major contributions to favorable political campaigns. Become an economic force to be reckoned with. 9 hours ago, fishndude57 said: You're stoned ... we cannot save the world. My 2 cents is all. Oops! I forgot to put 'tongue in cheek' around that remark, well - partially. But seriously, considering the season (political) it's something (one of many) we should keep in mind when casting our votes. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 21, 2016 9 hours ago, Bit Banger said: Oops! I forgot to put 'tongue in cheek' around that remark, well - partially. But seriously, considering the season (political) it's something (one of many) we should keep in mind when casting our votes. Well, both parties seemed to have jumped on the bandwagon for this one. So it will be difficult to cast a ballot either way unless one votes for a third or fourth party, in which case the regulars win anyway. As I previously posted, they've got liars and cheaters on both sides of the aisle. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 21, 2016 7 minutes ago, amcbl1 said: Well, both parties seemed to have jumped on the bandwagon for this one. So it will be difficult to cast a ballot either way unless one votes for a third or fourth party, in which case the regulars win anyway. As I previously posted, they've got liars and cheaters on both sides of the aisle. I totally agree both parties have gotten stupid. I'm not sure I can hold my nose hard enough this Fall. In the other hand if enough of us vote for 'someone else' they may hear the message. Afterall, the Tea Party has had an effect. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) On 3/20/2016 at 3:24 PM, amcbl1 said: Another example of lying hypocrisy. How many of these "righteous statesmen" have mistresses or are seeing providers on the side. They are doing this under the guise of protecting us from "sex trafficking". Not saying that traffficking doesn't occur on BP, but I think its exaggerated to a large extent. ^^^^ This. I literally scoffed at the article thinking the same thing. Edited March 22, 2016 by MOCHA 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
