Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 86 posts

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#21

Post by nickpinkston »

Just throwing out there that the "trafficking" topic in the media is largely a moral panic from the culture conservatives working with the police to call all sex work trafficking, as that juices their numbers for the scale of the problem, giving both group more supports/donors while doing nothing to help victims. This is a gross mischaracterization.

Here's an article by a former sex worker on this, and how decrim, Backpage, etc. are better for reducing the numbers of victims in sex work and the severity of what they deal with.

https://medium.com/@cathyreisenwitz/how-to-actually-fight-tr...

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#22

Post by maxbond »

vorpalhex wrote: post #14
maxbond wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've read, it seems sex workers hold that they are safer online because they are able to directly manage their relationships with clients. This enables them to enforce vetting processes before they meet up in person (impossible in the street), and eliminate abusive middle men (pimps). We could do better than Backpage, we could probably make abuse of sex workers rare rather than a cliche, but it would requir…

Bluntly, we tried drug decriminalization in the theory that decriminalization meant people could seek help. Instead of more people getting help, fewer did because the stick had been removed. [0] We should ask, well, does sex trafficking happen more or less in areas where prostitution is legal? That'll give us a good indicator of the effects of decriminalization. We have a great study on this [1]. Decriminalization ma…

This is pretty silly, prohibition has been an obvious failure in both drugs and sex work.

Firstly, it's a human rights issue, people ought to be able to engage in the commerce of their choosing with only reasonable restrictions. Prohibition is an unreasonable restriction, enforced according to a set of puritan morals that are no longer even popularly held. After all, alcohol is more addictive and more harmful than many schedule 1 drugs. We're not enforcing any kind of consistent moral principle here, we're hewing to the arbitrary views of people who are long dead. I personally do not find prostitution compatible with my moral sensibilities (I'm a prude, I'm just a libertarian prude), so I don't engage with it, but I'm not interested in prosecuting those that do any more than I'm interested in criminalizing pineapple on pizza.

Secondly, that study doesn't show that it made trafficking worse. It showed that it increased inflows of trafficking. Of course traffickers will prefer open markets to closed ones, that doesn't establish a causal relationship whereby increased openness lead to more net trafficking. What this shows is that prohibition makes trafficking happen in someone else's back yard.

Thirdly, you're linking to a 2014 article about a 2012 study, which is ancient as far as an academic paper goes. Is there really no more recent study? Browsing Google Scholar is evident that this is an active area off research.

Here's a 2021 one I skimmed to cherrypick an article that finds decriminalization more effective ("Although it seems that partial decriminalization has greater benefits with fewer disadvantages, it is not without defects."): https://brieflands.com/articles/ijhrba-106741.html

Why should I find your article more authoritative? (I'm looking for a survey article on the subject presently.)

Fourth, once you've prohibited something, it's next to impossible to intervene to make that market safer. If we want to find the traffickers, we're going to have an easier time in a lit market then a dark one.

Lastly, I'm just more inclined to listen to sex workers and trafficking victims about what they would help than to look at descriptive statistics. Statistics are cool and useful, but predictive mental models and lives experience is a better source of policy. Statistics is better able to tell us that something isn't working than what that something is, why it isn't working, and what should be done about it.

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#23

Post by mistrial9 »

vorpalhex wrote: post #14
maxbond wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've read, it seems sex workers hold that they are safer online because they are able to directly manage their relationships with clients. This enables them to enforce vetting processes before they meet up in person (impossible in the street), and eliminate abusive middle men (pimps). We could do better than Backpage, we could probably make abuse of sex workers rare rather than a cliche, but it would requir…

Bluntly, we tried drug decriminalization in the theory that decriminalization meant people could seek help. Instead of more people getting help, fewer did because the stick had been removed. [0] We should ask, well, does sex trafficking happen more or less in areas where prostitution is legal? That'll give us a good indicator of the effects of decriminalization. We have a great study on this [1]. Decriminalization ma…

you are not wrong, the counter-prevailing theory is related to "Harm Reduction"

over centuries consider cities and their populace. Those who practiced strict morality laws led to slum cities where there was nothing but vice, whereas mixed cities past a certain size that licensed bars or theater or taxi-dancing or whatever the action was.. might have different outcomes over time for the population. The character of the police force and others wielding turf-territory might be different over time as well.

As the population grows its hard to imagine purity as a real reaction to public health, whatever your moral compass might be.

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#24

Post by worik »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #9
myshpa wrote: post #5

“unlike virtually every other website that is used for prostitution and sex trafficking, Backpage is remarkably responsive to law enforcement requests and often takes proactive steps to assist in investigations.” - DOJ "In short, contrary to the public narrative you may have heard, Backpage worked closely with federal law enforcement to actually stop sex trafficking (and not just take it down, but to track down the p…

From the Wired piece mentioned: > The government indictment that triggered Lacey and Larkin’s arrests, United States v. Lacey, et al., includes 17 “victim summaries”—stories of women who say they were sexually exploited through Backpage. Victim 5 first appeared in an ad on the platform when she was 14; her “customers” made her “perform sexual acts at gunpoint, choked her to the point of having seizures, and gang-rape…

I live in a jurisdiction where sex work is decriminalised.

Trafficking does still occur. But it is a very small part of the scene.

The difference it has made to workers is huge. Once they were at risk from pimps, clients, and cops. Now if pimps or clients bother them they go to the cops, and the cops protect them. As they should.

As they do for shop keepers, plumbers, and computer programmers.

Make no mistake: Having a law against sex work encourages, and subsidises, trafficking.

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#25

Post by rayiner »

maxbond wrote: post #22
vorpalhex wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bluntly, we tried drug decriminalization in the theory that decriminalization meant people could seek help. Instead of more people getting help, fewer did because the stick had been removed. [0] We should ask, well, does sex trafficking happen more or less in areas where prostitution is legal? That'll give us a good indicator of the effects of decriminalization. We have a great study on this [1]. Decriminalization ma…

This is pretty silly, prohibition has been an obvious failure in both drugs and sex work. Firstly, it's a human rights issue, people ought to be able to engage in the commerce of their choosing with only reasonable restrictions. Prohibition is an unreasonable restriction, enforced according to a set of puritan morals that are no longer even popularly held. After all, alcohol is more addictive and more harmful than ma…

> Firstly, it's a human rights issue, people ought to be able to engage in the commerce of their choosing with only reasonable restrictions

You’re starting with a libertarian premise most people don’t accept. The vast majority of the world accepts that it’s proper to restrict individual freedom even to protect people from themselves. Society has a role to play to help people make good choices and to make it hard for them to make bad or dangerous choices.

Also, you’re incorrect about the prevalent morals. Even in the US, women—who bear the lion’s share of the cost of prostitution—oppose legalizing by a large margin (50% to 30%): https://www.vox.com/2016/3/11/11203740/prostitution-legal-me.... And of course the overwhelming majority would still say it’s a bad or immoral choice, even if they agree someone should be allowed to make that choice.

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#26

Post by [deleted] »

vorpalhex wrote: post #14
maxbond wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've read, it seems sex workers hold that they are safer online because they are able to directly manage their relationships with clients. This enables them to enforce vetting processes before they meet up in person (impossible in the street), and eliminate abusive middle men (pimps). We could do better than Backpage, we could probably make abuse of sex workers rare rather than a cliche, but it would requir…

Bluntly, we tried drug decriminalization in the theory that decriminalization meant people could seek help. Instead of more people getting help, fewer did because the stick had been removed. [0] We should ask, well, does sex trafficking happen more or less in areas where prostitution is legal? That'll give us a good indicator of the effects of decriminalization. We have a great study on this [1]. Decriminalization ma…

[deleted]

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#27

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

fasthands9 wrote: post #16
myshpa wrote: post #5

“unlike virtually every other website that is used for prostitution and sex trafficking, Backpage is remarkably responsive to law enforcement requests and often takes proactive steps to assist in investigations.” - DOJ "In short, contrary to the public narrative you may have heard, Backpage worked closely with federal law enforcement to actually stop sex trafficking (and not just take it down, but to track down the p…

I feel like discussions around sex trafficking are weird. By legal definition they facilitated sex trafficking. Perhaps they could argue they are better than Average Joe Pimp, but Average Joe Pimp is also going to say he was kinder or more fair than Average Bob Pimp. It seems like everyone accepts face value numbers of sex trafficking when trying to make a point about how widespread the issue is - but then except mos…

> By legal definition

How's that?

Like, if McDonald's unknowingly sells a Big Mac to a hungry sex trafficker, have they facilitated sex trafficking? What if they do know he's a sex trafficker, but he's not currently dragging any women behind him with chains? Does he like have to be in flagrant possession of captive victims for it to be "facilitating"?

The legal definition, such as it is, is lame and rather loose. And besides, prosecutors routinely twist and stretch these definitions and judges rarely rebuke them for it, let alone shut it down (at least at the district level).

"Facilitating X" usually means that the defendant associated with the criminals, was vaguely aware that they committed crimes, and didn't refuse to do business with them (or in some cases, that they didn't become vigilante police themselves and investigate to be sure that the customers weren't criminals).

I'm reminded of a man prosecuted because he was selling little plastic vials with lids out of his dollar store. As he realized how popular they were, he ordered more... until at one point, he sought out a local manufacturer to make the things so he could reduce costs. The product was popular with crack dealers or something.

He was prosecuted on a "facilitation" charge of some sort. The idea of "facilitation" in regards to crime probably needs to be abandoned.

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#28

Post by clipsy »

zer8k wrote: post #17
fasthands9 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like discussions around sex trafficking are weird. By legal definition they facilitated sex trafficking. Perhaps they could argue they are better than Average Joe Pimp, but Average Joe Pimp is also going to say he was kinder or more fair than Average Bob Pimp. It seems like everyone accepts face value numbers of sex trafficking when trying to make a point about how widespread the issue is - but then except mos…

I also don't know how you can differentiate "consensual" from "non-consensual" sex work. 1. They say "no im not exploited" because they are afraid 2. They say "no im not exploited" because they are not exploited You gain no information from interviewing them. No vice unit has the resources to do a top secret clearance level check on them to confirm externally they are not exploited. To act like the two can simply be…

I know plenty of people who feel exploited by their (non-sex-)work, ranging from manual labor to retail to trades to high paying white collar jobs. Shall we ban all of that as well?
Post reply on HN