Craigslist dropping 'erotic services' ads | Hacker News Reader

Craigslist dropping 'erotic services' ads

google.com

30 pointsDavidSJ39 comments

Open articleView on HN

That's silly. If I were in law enforcement I would _use_ erotic services ads as a way to prosecute those involved. Something like Craigslist would be an asset for me.

I think there is some tricky business regarding entrapment and that sting operations have only met limited success. If I were in law enforcement, I'd feel stupid wasting my time investigating violations of a law as ill-conceived as anti-prostitution legislation. How many unsolved rapes, murders and robberies are there out there? There shouldn't be a penny wasted on something this trivial until those are taken care of - and girls forced into prostitution is a totally different issue which would be largely addressed with legalization.

This isn't being driven by law enforcement. It's being driven by elected Attorneys General.

The idea is not to stop crime, it's to look like you're stopping crime.

This is probably a bad idea; the main advantage of this controversial section is to keep prostitution ads off the main personals listings. I'm guessing there'll be an increase in these types of ads in the other sections.

There is probably a huge opportunity in this for someone willing to trudge through that wasteland.

You'd be one step away from the business end of organized crime. Not worth the risk IMO. Craigslist is probably somewhat protected by their sheer size and high profile. You'd be one guy taking money from and dealing with career criminals.

> Craigslist is probably somewhat protected by their sheer size and high profile.

Profile, maybe. But not size... AFAIK, CL is still a mostly small team operation...

http://www.mslater.com/2007/1/26/the-craigslist-anomaly

...though they are a little bit bigger due to the increased local coverage since that article was written.

http://gawker.com/354814/its-like-yelp-but-for-hookers

will this stop others from providing a forum for "erotic services" advertisements? no. but this will bring some sort of order to the current system on cl. and cl is the largest market place for this kind of stuff.

at the risk of being flamed, i kind of liken this to whats going on between arrington and fb re. holocaust denial. if fb squashes holocaust denial on their platform, will it kill it everywhere, no (duh). but it would draw a line as to what is acceptable and what is not on their systems.

neither cl nor fb are legally responsible for what people post on their sites. but cl made a decision to "do the right thing"(tm), im pretty sure fb will as well.

In FB's case, doing the right thing will only drive holocaust deniers further underground. Banishment is not the way people should debate ideas, however stupid they are.

Specially when they are stupid ones.

underground and marginalized is exactly where that conversation should be taking place. not on the open forums of one of the most trafficked web sites on the planet.

it is one thing to have a conversation and/or debate as to the veracity of the holocaust. it is another to actually form groups as a hub specifically for the sole purpose of denying what is an immutable fact. in doing so, fb lends itself as an unwitting accomplice and creates an implied link between the two.

how bad can holocaust denial be?sounds like they might have a point. you can join a group for it right on facebook!

What about when it's our unpopular idea, siculars? Ten to fifteen years ago, when it was common knowledge that hackers were just criminals that broke into computers and stole things, should we have had to have these conversations underground and marginalized?

When you call for suppression, you're asserting that you expect to be on the winning side of every memetic battle, but the only way to assure that is to switch sides if you're losing.

Ideally we would debate openly and ideas would stand/fall on their merits alone. However, this takes near herculean mental efforts on the parts of all involved to overcome their base, political instincts. And unfortunately you lose politically if you engage with dramatically unpopular ideas in any way:

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/04/in-the-latest-american...

The conflagration between hacker and cracker was and remains semantics. Sir, your argument is sound but your example is weak.

I knew it was weak, but it was the only point of reference I had that I knew we shared, without reading through your comment history.

I think you mean "conflation", by the way.

I meant what I wrote. Conflagration it is.

Most places in the offline U.S. have laws prohibiting prostitution. Also all places in the offline U.S. have laws protecting the freedom of speech no matter how repulsive it may be.

I don't think this has anything to do with "doing the right thing." I'm sure you could make a compelling argument that Craigslist is facilitating criminal enterprise, and it would be a strictly business decision for them if they wanted to fight those charges or find a (less costly) middle-ground.

How is this an example of doing the right thing?

With great power (accessibility), comes great responsibility. The erotic service ads are visible by plain view and can be accessed by anyone by simply clicking through a link. Craigslist should do a much better job of protecting kids and naive teens, and with some level of verification to protect your general user too. Many of the erotic services are bots looking to harvest email address from unsuspecting users.

However, I do think removing them entirely is a joke too. They certainly aren't protecting anyone in that regard.

its the right thing on a number of levels.

1. it gets the attorneys general off your back.

2. it is good pr

3. it will reduce spam on that section of the site which will result in better ads for customers

4. it sets a standard that says "we wont allow a wild west freak show on our site"

agree, dont agree, whatever... the freak show will continue in other parts of the interweb. just not on cl in the manner that it has in the past. and thats the win - because cl is the main hub for people looking for all kinds of stuff - freak show or otherwise. you cant really have your cake and eat it too.

Your 3 is bizarre. It removes spam on a section of the site by removing the section. No customers are helped by this; it's straight cost-cutting (which is the other side of trying to be profitable, of course).

That section is being replaced by a moderated analogue

Maybe I should have read the article, eh? :)

I seriously hope this would lead to more discussion or light on this that would pave way for legalizing the service.

I mean, what business can the state have in dictating what two consenting adults do without disturbing others.

Why not just charge for them?

IANA(L|PO), but I suspect that the people looking to perpetrate a crime won't be deterred by a nominal fee.

They would be, if the commercial transaction leaves their identity behind. Pimping is a "cash or stash" business.

to sign up to post on this section, you already have to confirm a phone number that can be used to reach you, which is very likely tied to some sort of information about you already (and if you can fake a phone application, why not a credit card application?)

"Also effective today for all US sites, a new category entitled 'adult services' will be opened for postings by legal adult service providers," it added.

smart move on craigslist, they get to skip the "controversy" and in turn get to make money off ads that used to be free.

And this won't do shit to lowering prostitution, there are dozens of other sites in that same space

I had to make sure I wasn't reading The Onion. Why does Craigslist think they're the new authority on what free speech we are and aren't allowed to express?

The correlation between the crazy medical student and Craigslist does not imply causation, the same way keeping guns from a murderer won't stop him from using a knife.

What does Craigslist's removal of a section on their site have to do with your right to free speech? (Hint: The answer is absolutely nothing.)

Why should they expose themselves to liability unnecessarily?

Not everyone is aware that the First Amendment, like all the Amendments, apply to government. It prevents the government from restricting our speech, and does not dictate what kind of ads a private enterprise may choose to allow.

Except the government didn't dictate anything in this case. Craigslist made this decision on their own at the _request_ of various law enforcement agencies.

There will still be an adult section on Craigslist, it will just be moderated by CL staff and will no longer allow explicit images. Not much is really changing here; and there certainly isn't an infringement of anyone's rights.

Yes, I was agreeing with you, and commenting on your parent post. Craigslist chose to exercise their right to not allow a free-for-all on their adult section.

Ahh, my mistake. Thank you for clarifying.

Ads are not speech, there are many restrictions on ads.

You express the free speech you want to express by paying for your own server time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com