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

71–80 of 86 posts

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#71

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

flangola7 wrote: post #64
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and legitimate consensual sex work What is legitimate consensual sex work? For those of us who don't transact with prostitutes, all we know about this is a stream of narratives we've seen on tv and in film. Julia Roberts falling for Richard Gere, or Maggie Gyllenhall refusing to have a pimp "manage" her. Yet, I remember reading one account of a porn actress, who despite signing all the paperwork, waivers and contra…

You've obviously never had so much as a single friend who was a SW.

Was it obvious because my entire comment laid out how I only know this stuff from fiction? Or did you dig deep and use your Nostradamus powers to read it from my brain telepathically?

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#72

Post by maxbond »

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…

> EDIT: Somewhat hilarious I'm getting downvoted for an opinion. Groupthink HN truly the pinnacle of individualistic moral superiority.

1. You're probably being downvoted for saying people are "foam mouthed progressives" (and other such pejoratives) more than anything.

2. People often don't vote the way you would like. That is the nature of voting. You learn to live with it or you drive yourself crazy. (You'll probably be surprised how much your score goes up if you forego the inside insults though.)

3. There are plenty of people here who agree with you, but they aren't going to upvote, vouch your comments, or support your argument if you buck the norms of the community by being insulting. The community only survives by discouraging behavior like that.

For instance, I flagged a comment on this thread which was an insult to you personally, even though that person and I were aligned on this issue.

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#73

Post by rayiner »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #59
rayiner wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If there was no minimum wage and no OSHA, would you look at the opinion of all workers or just the people who agreed to work for a low wage or in an unsafe condition? Obviously the former, because all workers are subject to coercion to agree to work for low wages and in unsafe conditions, and the point is to protect all workers from that pressure.

Similarly, sex workers don’t start out that way. All women are subject to the coercion and social pressure that pushes some into sex work. The daughter of that middle class suburban woman could be pressured into sex work by an abusive boyfriend, for example. They all have a stake in the situation.

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#74

Post by Brian_K_White »

worik wrote: post #24
toomuchtodo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: Havin…

No one ever denied that things happened. The difference was they actually worked against it.

The question to ask is, did the slavery stop without backpage?

Which means, (assuming the answer is no it didn't stop or even reduce at all) did the problem get better or worse by attacking backpage? Wherever the slaves are marketed now, is the owner working with police to discover and free them?

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#75

Post by Brian_K_White »

vorpalhex wrote: post #66
s1artibartfast wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 traff…

I don't think making money or satisfying customers offsets the harm of kidnapping someone and selling their body.

What is the draft for military service?

I don't mean in countries where every single person does the same short term, I mean when there is a war and we grab all the fit young men.

It's hardly any different. What really is being defended by all those draftees? Not our lives, just our way of life.

Everyone else agreed that those smaller number of people fed into a meat grinder was worth everyone else's ability to own a car and a house and elect their own mayor.

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#76

Post by flangola7 »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #71
flangola7 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've obviously never had so much as a single friend who was a SW.

Was it obvious because my entire comment laid out how I only know this stuff from fiction? Or did you dig deep and use your Nostradamus powers to read it from my brain telepathically?

This is your opportunity for introspection, not childish snappy retorts.

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#77

Post by themitigating »

maxbond wrote: post #65
themitigating wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thirdly, you're linking to a 2014 article about a 2012 study, which is ancient as far as an academic paper goes Has there been some new release of prostitution, like a 2.0 where they updated the security to prevent abuse? Stupid joke but nothing has really changed in that realm of things where a study that isn't that old would be invalid.

> Has there been some new release of prostitution, like a 2.0 where they updated the security to prevent abuse? This is the wrong question. A better one is, "has the way prostitution and sex trafficking relate to the internet changed?", but the correct one is "does a 2012 article reflect the current understanding in this field of research?"

2012 isn't really pre internet though, right?

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#78

Post by themitigating »

clipsy wrote: post #68
themitigating wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being forced to work against your will at Mcdonalds sucks* being forced to have sex against your will is rape. Rape is considered by almost all countries to be one of the most heinous crimes imaginably. I also don't have a source but would you agree that the amount of people being forced to work against their will at Mcdonalds is much lower than prostitution? Your comment was trying to say "what's the line?" right? L…

> Being forced to work against your will at Mcdonalds sucks* being forced to have sex against your will is rape. No, being forced to work against your will at McDonald's is slavery. > I also don't have a source but would you agree that the amount of people being forced to work against their will at Mcdonalds is much lower than prostitution? Sorry, we've already agreed it's impossible to tell. If you'd like to admit t…

"If you'd like to admit that's a dumb belief, please proceed."

Why would you make an insulting comment when we are having a discussion?

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#79

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #40
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…

> But they refused to do the same for consensual sex work and that is why the feds eventually came down on them like a ton of bricks, all while telling the media and politicians that it was for sex trafficking. Sex trafficking is defined as sex work. There isn't a legal difference. That's why they're saying it.

> Sex trafficking is defined as sex work. There isn't a legal difference.

Sex trafficking is addressed in 18 U.S. Code §1591, where a sex trafficker is "a person who recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains or maintains a minor for a commercial sex act"

This is pretty distinct from prostitution, a service which is legal in Nevada (where federal laws apply).

Re: Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

#80

Post by dragonwriter »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #40
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…

> But they refused to do the same for consensual sex work and that is why the feds eventually came down on them like a ton of bricks, all while telling the media and politicians that it was for sex trafficking. Sex trafficking is defined as sex work. There isn't a legal difference. That's why they're saying it.

> Sex trafficking is defined as sex work.

There are a number of definitions in different legal codes, but I’d be surprised if this was accurate in any of them (its not, as another reply notes, in US federal law): sex traffickers and sex workers aren't, even approximately, the same thing.

Post reply on HN