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

51–60 of 86 posts

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#51

Post by clipsy »

tekla wrote: post #43
clipsy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How would you know consent was given by a sex worker? How would you know consent was given by a McDonald's cashier?

Last time I checked with some lefty people, you wouldn't, since the worker would be too scared to possibly lose job/pay over critiquing their employer, so they would be heavily incentivized to say anything keep the status quo. So how DO you know consent was given by the sex worker?

I don't, just like with the McDonald's cashier. Do you think both of these jobs should be banned? That neither of them should be banned? Or that one should be legal and the other banned? Please explain why.

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#52

Post by nullc »

> But I do hope that some of the people who literally built up their own profiles by demonizing Backpage and Section 230 at least take a moment to reflect on whether or not they got so caught up in the narrative they wanted that they missed what was actually happening.

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kama...

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#53

Post by rayiner »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #49
rayiner wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Even in the US, women — who bear the lion’s share of the cost of prostitution — oppose legalizing by a large margin That's not a surprise. Amazon bears the cost of Wal-mart's operations and would probably like to outlaw Wal-mart too.

I think a fairer analogy is worker protection laws. Workers understand how other workers can be coerced into accepting unsafe working conditions and think it’s okay to limit individual freedom to take that pressure off the table for all.

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#54

Post by s1artibartfast »

mkatx wrote: post #45
Vicinity9635 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Make no mistake: Having a law against sex work encourages, and subsidises, trafficking. Super dark take: Hey, it worked to make drugs more profitable, why not sex work? I remember when it passed and pretty much every ordinary American was surprised and hadn't asked for it. It seemed to come out of nowhere with no news coverage that I was aware of and nobody was a fan.

Black markets are dangerous and people are going to do it anyway. Albeit unintuitive, legalization and regulation is the way to go! As an average American, decriminalized drugs and sex work for the win!

I tend to agree, but many people get so riled up on the topic that they forget that just because something is legal doesn't mean it's good and just because something is bad doesn't mean it should be illegal.

The legal system shouldn't be the single tool humans use to decide how to act. It should be a very High bar to prevent the most egregious and destructive Acts, not a tool for achieving optimal human behavior

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#55

Post by clipsy »

rayiner wrote: post #25
maxbond wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> women—who bear the lion’s share of the cost of prostitution

Prostitutes bear the lion's share of the cost of prostitution.

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#56

Post by s1artibartfast »

clipsy wrote: post #48
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…

> We have a great study on this [1]. Decriminalization makes sex trafficking WORSE - full stop. Prostitution means more sex trafficking happens, and crackdowns on prostitution successfully reduce sex trafficking too. From the article[0] (NB: not the linked article, the actual research paper): "Among the currently available sources, the aforementioned Report on Trafficking in Persons: Global Patterns (UNODC, 2006) has…

Furthermore, pretty much all of these studies avoid any quantification of the benefits. Women employed, the money that they made, the number of people that stayed out of the criminal justice systems, and even satisfied customers.

Of course there will always be questions of induced demand, assuming that that's bad and may increase trafficking. That doesn't mean that there's not tools and policies that can combat trafficking in a legal system. For example, citizenship requirements for prostitutes and a death penalty for traffickers would probably go a long way

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#57

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rayiner wrote: post #25
maxbond wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Do they? The argument I always see is that it's to protect society from them e.g. imposing costs on the healthcare system.

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#58

Post by clipsy »

zer8k wrote: post #46
clipsy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[flagged]

Next time you should just let us know you're a piece of shit right at the outset; that way no one will need to waste their time replying to you.

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#59

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rayiner wrote: post #53
thaumasiotes wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even in the US, women — who bear the lion’s share of the cost of prostitution — oppose legalizing by a large margin That's not a surprise. Amazon bears the cost of Wal-mart's operations and would probably like to outlaw Wal-mart too.

I think a fairer analogy is worker protection laws. Workers understand how other workers can be coerced into accepting unsafe working conditions and think it’s okay to limit individual freedom to take that pressure off the table for all.

That analogy would only fit if the workers suffering from the unsafe working conditions had the same views as the ones who don't, whereas it's suburban middle class women who favor prohibition and sex workers who favor legalization.

It's like saying "men, who bear the lion's share of the cost of the death penalty, support it more than women do." It's not the ones on death row who support it.

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#60

Post by DoreenMichele »

However, where they drew the line was when law enforcement started demanding similar help in tracking down non-trafficking consensual sex work.

It sounds like someone who took an enlightened and ethical stance who got railroaded.

I haven't followed the Backpage drama but this looks to me like a win for uptight, backwards people who want to pretend their hang ups are some form of "righteousness."

I'm very sad to see this article and the news that he apparently died by suicide.

Post reply on HN