Guest

Backpage ads

40 posts in this topic

On 12/12/2017 at 4:20 PM, jj254 said:

That's what protects sites like Reddit and Youtube. DCMA has a safe harbor clause where - arguably - backpage wouldn't be responsible for what users upload in a photo. They wouldn't have to police each submission but do need to remove illegal content when made aware of it. 

Plausible deniability.

But wonder how well this will work for BP. Sure, since they no longer allow text, can say "no idea what they were advertising for", but guessing DAs/AGs will still come after them re: not monitoring the links' contents, not monitoring the massage section, and whatever else they can dream up. MAYBE an argument that BP's efforts are just a sham and still knowingly promote illicit activities. Not that these cases will work (BP seems to have done well in getting cases tossed out), but, do not see any let-up for them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NoCoGeezer said:

Plausible deniability.

But wonder how well this will work for BP. Sure, since they no longer allow text, can say "no idea what they were advertising for", but guessing DAs/AGs will still come after them re: not monitoring the links' contents, not monitoring the massage section, and whatever else they can dream up. MAYBE an argument that BP's efforts are just a sham and still knowingly promote illicit activities. Not that these cases will work (BP seems to have done well in getting cases tossed out), but, do not see any let-up for them.

Legal status is pretty well established that as long as they do not continue to do the stupid shit that got them in trouble to begin with they will be fine because of this last move.  EXCEPT for the fact that now the crusaders in government have an entirely different path - going after the ISP's to force them to cripple or eliminate escort ads - thank you BIC and minions for killing net neutrality.  Can hardly wait to see what chaos that brings and what BIC has in mind next.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gr8owl said:

Legal status is pretty well established that as long as they do not continue to do the stupid shit that got them in trouble to begin with they will be fine because of this last move.  EXCEPT for the fact that now the crusaders in government have an entirely different path - going after the ISP's to force them to cripple or eliminate escort ads - thank you BIC and minions for killing net neutrality.  Can hardly wait to see what chaos that brings and what BIC has in mind next.

Again, this is false.  TOB was born...and grew lustily...during the pre-net-neutrality days.  As did backpage.  The law and regulations are now the same as they were back in....say...2011 when I first stumbled upon these hallowed pages.  

Net Neutrality was REPEALED. No new laws or regulations made.  

Everybody just needs to take a deep breath. Sheesh.  Stop the fear-mongering.

Edited by Yorick
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yorick said:

Again, this is false.  TOB was born...and grew lustily...during the pre-net-neutrality days.  As did backpage.  The law and regulations are now the same as they were back in....say...2011 when I first stumbled upon these hallowed pages.  

...

The laws may be the same as they were pre-Net Neutrality, but the environment has changed, significantly. The Net Neutrality laws were put in place because Internet usage was changing. Some users were beginning to over consume resources and ISPs were trying to figure out how to control, to throttle, this over use. The new laws attempted to make the formation of vertical monopolies less cost effective. Now the mega-corp ISP can channel customers into their content and stifle other content providers. Initially I expect the battles to be over volume, bandwidth, and speed. Small fry like TOB need not worry. But once controls have been developed I expect 'the righteous' to demand that these tools also be applied based on content.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2017 at 2:28 PM, Yorick said:

Again, this is false.  TOB was born...and grew lustily...during the pre-net-neutrality days.  As did backpage.  The law and regulations are now the same as they were back in....say...2011 when I first stumbled upon these hallowed pages.  

Net Neutrality was REPEALED. No new laws or regulations made.  

Everybody just needs to take a deep breath. Sheesh.  Stop the fear-mongering.

It's a lot more complicated than that. First, net neutrality wasn't a law, it was a rule in place via the FCC to treat all internet traffic equally regardless of origin or destination. Under net neutrality, your ISP couldn't slow or block your data requests. Now they can. There was already a huge corporate fight over it between Netflix and Verizon. Verizon wanted Netflix to pay them directly to allow Verizon customers to continue streaming Netflix. That wasn't allowed under net neutrality. Now it's allowed. The second part that's allowed now is Verizon, or Comcast, or whatever Quest is calling themselves these days can completely block your access to Netflix if you don't pay extra for it as well. They can charge at both ends. You wanna access ToB? Hopefully ISPs don't decide it's morally reprehensible and continue to allow it (though be prepared to start paying a premium for 'adult' sites). Are you a contractor? Run a small business? Be ready to pay extra to allow potential customers to see your site. 

Without net neutrality, we're all fucked. 

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only tried BP three times. Not much luck. Two of them had fake photos and Another double booked. We both showed up at the same room at the same time. I wonder if there are many no shows so they double book? How embarrassing that was. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AP article:  PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The estate of a woman has filed a $3.6 million lawsuit against Backpage.com and the owners of the Portland, Oregon, hotel where she was killed by a man she'd met for sex. The suit filed Friday says the 25-year-old had been trafficked by an abusive pimp. It says she was killed in 2014 by Tae Bum Yoon, who found her through the classifieds website and lured her to a hotel. The Oregonian/OregonLive reports that Yoon was sentenced to 18 years in prison after being convicted of manslaughter.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rio1 said:

AP article:  PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The estate of a woman has filed a $3.6 million lawsuit against Backpage.com and the owners of the Portland, Oregon, hotel where she was killed by a man she'd met for sex. The suit filed Friday says the 25-year-old had been trafficked by an abusive pimp. It says she was killed in 2014 by Tae Bum Yoon, who found her through the classifieds website and lured her to a hotel. The Oregonian/OregonLive reports that Yoon was sentenced to 18 years in prison after being convicted of manslaughter.

Being a believer in personal responsibility, that estate does NOT want me on the jury.  Now if they were sueing her pimp ...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rio1 said:

AP article:  PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The estate of a woman has filed a $3.6 million lawsuit against Backpage.com and the owners of the Portland, Oregon, hotel where she was killed by a man she'd met for sex. The suit filed Friday says the 25-year-old had been trafficked by an abusive pimp. It says she was killed in 2014 by Tae Bum Yoon, who found her through the classifieds website and lured her to a hotel. The Oregonian/OregonLive reports that Yoon was sentenced to 18 years in prison after being convicted of manslaughter.

Oh wow this is just sad...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now