Secret Memos Show the Government Has Been Lying About Backpage All Along | Hacker News Reader

Secret Memos Show the Government Has Been Lying About Backpage All Along

reason.com

73 pointsspking21 comments

> "At the outset of this investigation, it was anticipated that we would find evidence of candid discussions among [Backpage] principals about the use of the site for juvenile prostitution which could be used as admissions of criminal conduct," wrote McNeil and Swaminathan in their 2013 update. "It was also anticipated that we would find numerous instances where Backpage learned that a site user was a juvenile prostitute and Backpage callously continued to post advertisements for her. To date, the investigation has revealed neither."

So, they found no evidence for the things that Backpage was alleged to have engaged in. And they decided to bring charges anyway?

There was a similar situation up in Seattle where a group of sex workers and clients got busted. Police referred to the operation a human trafficking ring and called the women sex slaves. The was no evidence that the women had any nonconsensual sex - the police justified their allegations that these women were enslaved by pointing out that some of the women were in the US on expired visas and that it is policy to assume that sex workers on expired visas are victims of human trafficking. This eventually led to one of the clients killed himself.

It's pretty astounding how much damage people are willing to cause to keep people from selling sex.

In Canada, where sex work is legal, I was granted a work permit that forbade sex work (and related employment). This is, presumably, justified by its impact on "sex trafficking" but all it does is further criminalize the sex workers.

I have a few friends who used backpage. Their favorite feature was a listing of "bad dates" so they could vet new potential customers. Sex work without backpage is scarier, riskier -- yet again, efforts pitched as "for wellbeing of women and children" have the opposite impact.

That's pretty much the case with just about every "sex trafficking" bust, isn't it? Lots of talk about rescuing children and what not, but in the end women, who are supposedly being helped, are hauled off to the slammer, customers, too, and not a single trafficking victim is found. But that doesn't make for good headlines, so the latter part is rarely reported.

Backpage got caught in a perfect combination of "baptists and bootleggers" where, except for people who actually do try to help trafficking victims, exploited kids, etc., who all found BP quite useful and cooperative, everybody, left and right, wanted to shut it down for purely ideological reasons. In the end, nobody came out ahead.

It’s doubly sad because sex trafficking definitely exists (cf Epstein) but finding some single mom giving handjobs to widowers is much easier for cops to handcuff and call “sex trafficking.”

Oh, definitely. I'm sure that even the kind of trafficking that Backpage was accused of aiding and abetting also exists, although obviously to far lesser degree than people who feed off of fighting it would want us to believe. But busting some Chinese grandma giving handies in a parlor (after getting some at taxpayers' expense) is so much easier than running after gangbangers, and gives points with voters, so that's what we get...

We are suppose to be able to trust law enforcement, and the judicial process. Its difficult when they lie, do it for more power, and then lie about it again and again. This is not an eye opener, but more proof we cant trust those in power. Good article!

You're tarring all law enforcement officials with the same brush.

In the article, there's some very honest-sounding acknowledgement by officials of the efforts of the company to cooperate on some concerns (e.g., child exploitation), and also some apparent straight-laced belief in higher evidenciary standards for illegal things they seemed to believe/suspect were going on (e.g., intentionally facilitating adult prostitution).

I think the perseverance of that kind of honesty and belief in principles gives some hope, despite various discouraging things we can also see in society, from all directions.

I, like many, am not surprised at all.

> "Information provided to us by [FBI Agent Steve] Vienneau and other members of the Innocence Lost Task Force confirm that, 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,"

And you wonder why people hate the authorities. You would think that psychopathy among the justice department would lead to careers of all people involved being destroyed, yet it seldom happens and often not for years after when they have had plenty of time to do much more damage.

FYI, reason.com is considered to be right-center biased: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reason/

Why not discuss the article rather than post drive by links to supposed "bias fact check" sites which don't themselves seem to be authoritative....?

Would that make the article less credible? or more credible?

Wouldn't we expect a right-biased publication to be supportive of law enforcement and opposed to a prostitution website?

The one-dimensional spectrum is not particularly useful here, the narrative at your link is more relevant; Reason has a Libertarian bias in story selection (which is relevant here because Libertarian and Right have opposite expected biases on prostitution), and, perhaps most relevantly, a High rating on factual content.

So, yes, that they are covering this story perfectly matches their expected ideological bias in story selection, but their covering it isn't, in and of itself, a reason to doubt the factual content of the story based on your own media-bias site.

Seems like a good article though.

Well, the bias fact check site does give reason.com a favorable grade.

Most news sources are left-center biased, what's your point? The article is well-written and sourced.

Also in your link:

> A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check.

You wouldn't complain about a link to CNN or MSNBC, their reviews are much worse:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/

I agree it's a good article. I think the idea that most media is left of center is something of a myth perpetuated by conservatives. Most news media is corporate media. Which makes it corporate friendly media. Which biases it against a lot of progressive causes.

I'd maybe agree there tends to be a socially liberal bias, but economically I think most mainstream media is conservative.

You are correct!

Noam Chomsky covered this a long time ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic

He usually has. He could borrow the epitaph H.G. Wells wrote for himself: 'I told you so. You damned fools.'

Ok, but most of the news sources out there including those posted to HN are center or far left?

It's kind of funny that you should mention that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com