craigslist – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Content Moderation Case Study: Craigslist Implements Phone Verification To Fight Spam; Spammers Fight Back (2008)

from the spam-takes-many-forms dept

Summary: Craigslist — the online marketplace that pretty much still looks the way it looked when it went live all the way back in 1995 — has the same problems every online marketplace has: spammers and scammers.

The battle against people seeking to abuse the system has been ongoing since the site’s inception, but in 2008, Craigslist implemented a new control measure that temporarily stymied spammers who had found several ways to beat the systems previously employed by the online market.

To mitigate spam and limit the effectiveness of scam operations, Craigslist began requiring a phone number for verification on certain postings. This posed a problem for spammers hoping to engage in mass distribution of their “offerings” since it was unlikely any spammer or scammer would want to have their personal phone tied to their illegitimate (if not actually illegal) operations. When an ad was submitted to Craigslist, the site’s automated verification process would call the ad poster to relay a one-time code that would permit the listing to be posted.

That wasn’t the end of this new weapon against spammers deployed by Craigslist. If successfully-posted ads were subsequently flagged by other users as spam/scams, the phone number associated with the ad placement would be blocked.

This led to a pitched battle between Craigslist and scammers/spammers who were interested in exploiting the market’s reach. A long discussion on a message board frequented by spammers suggested several workarounds to avoid the countermeasures implemented by Craigslist. (To give you some idea how far back this discussion goes, there are recommendations for utilizing pay phones.)

Some suggested using a method favored by drug dealers and other criminal conspirators: burner phones. This was an admittedly-expensive workaround for a business model that requires hundreds of views to attract a few paying victims.

Others suggest buying subscriptions to online spam enablers — ones that provided users with tons of disposable numbers without the expense of buying new phones every time a phone number was rendered unusable.

Many of these suggestions were rejected by forum members, which suggests spam is only profitable when costs hover near $0. Some members speculated Craigslist was eliminating even more options by rejecting any numbers linked to VoIP services — the cheapest option for aspiring scammers. No solution appeared to work for everyone, strongly suggesting the phone verification move by Craiglist at least temporarily put a dent in scammers’ efforts.

Decisions to be made by Craigslist:

Questions and policy implications to consider:

Resolution: As is the case anywhere goods are sold online, there is no permanent resolution. What worked in 2008 is not nearly as effective a dozen years down the road. But the discussion in this forum shows it did have a severe impact on spam almost immediately, even if its effectiveness was blunted by the advance of time and tech.

Craigslist still uses phone verification for certain posts, limiting users to three verification calls a day to each account, which cannot be triggered more than once every five minutes. VoIP numbers are still forbidden to be used for verification calls, which unfortunately impacts some legitimate users with no other phone options.

Originally published to the Trust & Safety Foundation website.

Filed Under: content moderation, scams, spam
Companies: craigslist

Civil FOSTA Suits Start Showing Up In Court; Prove That FOSTA Supporters Were 100% Wrong About Who Would Be Targeted

from the who-would-have-guessed dept

During the run up to the passage of FOSTA, we were told two key things: (1) the law was absolutely necessary to stop sex trafficking websites like Backpage, and (2) that there was no way that the law would be abused to go after perfectly innocent websites. It’s pretty easy to show that both of these claims turned out to be utter bullshit. The first one was especially easy, seeing as the Feds seized the site and arrested its founders a week before FOSTA became law. The second has taken somewhat longer to show, in part because for a long while no one actually seemed to be making use of FOSTA. For a law that we were told was absolutely necessary and that any delay in passing it would mean lives put at risk, it has been notable just how few actual lawsuits have been filed under FOSTA in the 18 months or so since it became law. State attorneys general, who pushed strongly for it, claiming they needed this hole in Section 230 to go after bad actor websites have still never used the law. Not once.

However, a few civil suits have just started to show up, as highlighted in a guest post at Eric Goldman’s blog by FOSTA expert Alex Yelderman. She first points to two nearly identical lawsuits filed in state courts (one in Washington, one in California) against Craigslist and a bunch of hotels. Craigslist has sought to remove both to federal court as of early December. Both cases push, as Yelderman notes, “radical theories of liability” aimed at Craigslist. They also target activities that happened prior to FOSTA becoming law (as you may recall, Craigslist shut down its “erotic services” section all the way back in 2010, and then shut down all dating after FOSTA became law, noting that the liability risk was just too much).

That hasn’t stopped the company from getting sued under the law, though, with it claiming that just the mere fact that Craigslist had such a section a decade ago proves that it was engaged in sex trafficking under FOSTA. As Yelderman points out, the fact that FOSTA is apparently retroactive and can reach back to such things, will almost certainly be found unconstitutional. As you may recall, even the DOJ told Congress this part was unconstitutional.

Even beyond that aspect, though, the claims in the lawsuit are crazy. They assume that FOSTA removed the requirement for knowledge on the part of intermediaries like Craigslist, even though supporters of the law insisted that wasn’t the case. Indeed, a key part of the DOJ’s defense of FOSTA in the Woodhull case that challenged the law (and which the district court rejected), was that FOSTA made no such change. As Yelderman explains:

The plaintiffs do not allege that craigslist knew anything about them specifically being trafficked ? in fact, they count themselves among ?thousands of victims? ? but rather claim that the website was aware ?that its erotic services section was well known to commercial sex customers throughout the United States as a place to easily locate victims for [SIC] as commodities, unpunished, anonymous, sexual abuse of children? and that once craigslist had been put ?on notice of the human sex trafficking? (?from numerous sources, including but not limited to; lawsuits, government action, public outcry, news media, victims, activities and employee observation?), its ongoing operation ?amounted to a venture with sex traffickers to efficiently market victims such as [the] Plaintiff.? (emphasis added)

This is a radical theory of liability, and raises the question: did FOSTA?s definition of ?participation in a venture,? codified in 18 U.S.C. § 1591(e)(4), eliminate the requirement that federal trafficking defendants (including, now, intermediaries) have actual knowledge of trafficking? The government in Woodhull assured that court that ?FOSTA changed nothing about Section 1591?s scienter standard,? and that a plaintiff ?cannot credibly fear criminal or civil liability [if] it has no specific knowledge about the content of any of the material it obtains? or ?be prosecuted under FOSTA [if] it has no knowledge about any individual webpage nor criminal intent.? (Defendants? reply and supplement at 7, 8, emphasis added)). But even if craigslist ends up prevailing, the fact that the cases were filed at all sounds the alarm on FOSTA?s reach, and shows the Woodhull plaintiffs? fear to be entirely reasonable

The other case that Yelderman highlights deserves even more scrutiny. It was filed against Mailchimp back in November, and I had meant to write it up at the time, but did not get the chance. It was filed by the same lawyer who has been filing a bunch of similar cases, including the nonsense cases against Salesforce, because Backpage used Salesforce. The lawyer behind those cases, Annie McAdams, even got herself quite a profile in the NY Times, where she meets the NY Times reporter at “her favorite Tex-Mex joint in Houston” and proceeds to brag that “she had acquired the restaurant?s secret margarita recipe in legal discovery when she sued the place for serving a man too much alcohol.”

Bragging about abusing the law and the courts for personal gain in a NY Times profile says something about you. For what it’s worth, McAdams’ Twitter account currently has exactly two tweets (it’s possible she’s deleted others), with the first one being her getting angry at me for referring to her lawsuits as “nuisance suits.” Quite a person there.

Either way, the claims against Mailchimp are absolutely the kinds of things we all warned would happen when FOSTA was being debated, and which FOSTA supporters insisted would never happen. The crux of the lawsuit is that when a Backpage clone, called YesBackpage, tried to startup after Backpage was seized, the site used Mailchimp for emails, and thus that makes it liable under FOSTA.

YesBackpage used Mail Chimp technology to enable efficient and targeted communication between itself and sex traffickers.

MailChimp was thereby an active party in the process of soliciting and fulfilling acts of sex trafficking.

MailChimp?s integrated communications software was used together to track postings of illegal advertisements, encourage greater use of these advertisements by traffickers, and effectively promote sex trafficking on an unprecedented scale.

MailChimp was the key technology used to unify the various digital components of the sex trafficking transaction, including the use of email to increase more advertising, more consumption of those ads, and thereby facilitate more sex trafficking.

Even if this lawsuit gets tossed out (as it should), the theory behind it is scary and worrisome. As Yelderman writes:

This case alleges that MailChimp ? a marketing platform ? ?made available its marketing resources and expertise? to a Backpage copycat website and that ?MailChimp?s marketing relationship with YesBackpage makes it responsible for its natural consequences ? the sex trafficking of Jane Doe.? (Doe v. MailChimp complaint at 12). This view of ?natural consequences? is breathtaking. Once MailChimp became ?[a]rmed with knowledge of activity occurring through YesBackpage,? any services performed for the website would presumably constitute ?participation in a [sex trafficking] venture.? There is no limiting factor in sight.

When sex trafficking is somehow construed as the ?natural consequence? of a virtually any action, virtually no person or entity is safe from the threat of liability.

These are the kinds of things many of us worried about (and warned Congress about) in the run-up to SESTA/FOSTA, and we were told we were crazy. Yet, looking at the actual lawsuits filed under FOSTA seems to prove we were 100% correct.

What’s even more troubling, through, is that they also show just how wrong the district court judge in the Woodhull case was to dismiss that case. The judge dismissed that case insisting that FOSTA included clear language that barred such widespread interpretations:

… plaintiffs ignore key textual indications that make clear that FOSTA targets specific acts of illegal prostitution not the abstract topic of prostitution or sex work.

That’s certainly not how the lawyers who filed the lawsuits above see it. At the very least, one hopes that the DC Appeals court recognizes this in deciding the Woodhull appeal. If not, then hopefully one of these or related cases makes its way up to an appeals court and gets FOSTA itself tossed for any of the variety of problems the law has created for speech online.

Filed Under: cda 230, fosta, intermediary liability, section 230, sex trafficking
Companies: backpage, craigslist, facebook, mailchimp, salesforce

New Study Says The Removal Of Craigslist Erotic Services Pages May Be Linked To An Increase In Murdered Females

from the for-the-good-of-the-many-or-whatever? dept

Under the guise of targeting sex traffickers, FOSTA has both done damage to Section 230 protections and sex workers’ literal lives. The law has yet to result in any credible, sustained damage to human trafficking, but that hasn’t stopped the bill’s supporters from trotting out debunked numbers anytime they need a soundbite.

There will likely be no studies performed by the government to determine FOSTA’s actual impact on sex trafficking, but plenty of academics are offering evidence that pushing sex work further underground is endangering the lives of sex workers. This is just the icing on the stupid, life-threatening cake as multiple law enforcement agencies — including the DOJ itself — pointed out passing FOSTA would make it more difficult to hunt down traffickers.

A study released in 2017 showed the introduction of erotic services section on Craiglist tracked with a 17% drop in female homicides across many major cities. Craigslist spent a few years being publicly vilified by public officials — mainly states attorneys general — before dumping its erotic services section (ERS). This didn’t stop sex work or trafficking, but it did shift the focus away from Craiglist as everyone affected found other services to use.

A newly-released study [PDF] (via Sophie Cull) shows there’s been a corresponding increase in female homicides since the point Craigslist dumped ERS. Online services — enabled by Section 230 — helped sex workers stay safe by reducing or eliminating a few of the more dangerous variables.

In the context of prostitution, online clearinghouses have the potential to improve safety by redirecting exchange through the clearinghouse and replacing more risky outdoor face-to-face transactions and/or other intermediaries (e.g., pimps) with indoor, direct transactions (Bass, 2015a,b). Matching online through the clearinghouse enables both sides of the market to discern the quality of the match ex ante, through such activities as informal screening, circulated black and white lists, and online reviews (Cunningham and Kendall, 2011b; Grant, 2009). This may provide the ability for sex workers to identify and screen out violent clients, law enforcement, and scammers.

The wholly expected happens when you take these safeguards away by eliminating online services, like Craigslist did in 2010.

[W]e find evidence that ERS significantly reduced female homicide rates by as much as 10-17 percent. We do not find evidence that this was a more general reduction in homicide, as ERS is unrelated to male murder, females killed by an intimate partner, or manslaughters. This strengthens our assessment that ERS-driven changes in sex markets were the primary driver of the reduction in female murders.

The study pulls from a number of data sets (including the FBI’s annual crime reports), but notes there are still some limitations that prevent this from being an exact determination. For one, most homicide reports don’t note whether the person killed was a sex worker. For another, the data lags because homicide reports date from the time the body was found, rather than the time the person was actually killed. From this underreported and laggy data, some inferences can be drawn, even if it’s impossible to say for certain what percentage of female homicides involved sex workers. If anything, the buggy data may point to an even greater reduction in violence against sex workers via the introduction of online marketplaces.

Are these magnitudes plausible? It is difficult to answer this question given that the true incidence of prostitution homicides is unknown. Most datasets do not record whether a female victim of a homicide was a sex worker, and those that do suffer from severe underascertainment biases built into the data collection methods. To our knowledge there is only one study that has attempted to estimate the incidence of prostitution homicide as a share of female homicides (Brewer et al., 2006). The authors concluded that 2.7 percent of all female homicides are prostitution deaths by clients. But this study has significant limitations. It is based on select data only from Chicago, St. Louis, Washington state, North Carolina, the SHR, 33 urban counties for one cross-section, and Colorado Springs. The issue of underascertainment bias would conceivably hold, and maybe moreso, for this select sample. Thus we interpret their estimates to be, at best, a lower bound. Our estimate of a 10 percent reduction in female homicides does suggest, though, that ERS created an overwhelmingly safe environment for female sex workers — perhaps the safest in history.

This is not to suggest government officials and lawmakers pushing laws like FOSTA don’t care about people’s lives. But I’m not sure what counterargument they can provide for legislation that not only results in increased harm to (mostly) women, but also undercuts the immunity that has allowed the internet to thrive. I guess the old adage is being spun to read “It’s better for dozens of sex workers to die than for third-party service providers to go free.”

Filed Under: ads, fosta, homicides, murder, sex workers
Companies: backpage, craigslist

State Appeals Court Finds Government's Actions In Craigslist Sex Sting 'Outrageous' And 'Repugnant'

from the ruinous-behavior dept

Our courts will let the government get away with almost anything. Although judges have expressed immense amounts of displeasure at the ATF’s sting operations involving fictitious drug stash houses, it has seldom resulted in reversed convictions. To “shock the conscience,” the government must cross lines courts are very reluctant to draw. Running a child porn website for a few weeks doesn’t do it. Neither does taking a trucking company’s truck and employee and returning both full of bullet holes after a sting goes south.

Very occasionally, the government will find its way across this line. Eric Goldman has uncovered one of these rare cases. It involves a child sex sting operation perpetrated by a law enforcement agency, during which the undercover officer refused to leave a “target” alone after he repeatedly made it clear he wasn’t looking to buy sex from an underage female.

This case’s setup resembles dozens or hundreds of similar cases I’ve read. In 2014, a law enforcement officer (in this case, Skagit County Sheriff’s detective Theresa Luvera) posted a sex solicitation on Craigslist’s casual encounters. As we’ve discussed before, Craigslist’s rules required all participants to be 18+. something that has undermined sex stings in the past (if you read that post, the parallels to this post will be obvious).

The defendant responded to the solicitation. After some online exchanges between the detective and the defendant, the detective claimed she is underage (“almost 15 but waaay advanced”). Even further into the exchanges, the detective brought up money-for-sex. At every step along the way but the end, the defendant seemingly made it clear he was seeking free sex with a female adult. Eventually the defendant shows up at the designated rendezvous point with the requested items. He “was charged with one count of communication with a minor for immoral purposes, one count of commercial sex abuse of a minor, and one count of attempted rape of a child in the third degree.”

The trial court dismissed the charges, pointing to the detective’s “outrageous misconduct.” More specifically, it pointed to the state’s violation of the defendant’s due process right to “fundamental fairness.” The appellate court upholds the decision in its opinion [PDF], which recaps, verbatim, some of the nearly 100 sexually explicit messages sent by the detective to push someone who had disengaged from the conversation multiple times into breaking the law.

In this matter, a law enforcement officer anonymously published an advertisement on an online classifieds platform reserved for those over the age of 18 and indicated that she was “a young female” seeking an individual interested in a casual sexual encounter. Joshua Solomon responded to the advertisement. Thereafter, the police officer assumed the guise of a fictional 14-year-old girl and sent Solomon nearly 100 messages laden with graphic, sexualized language and innuendo and persistently solicited him to engage in a sexual encounter with the fictional minor, notwithstanding that he had rejected her solicitations seven times over the course of four days.

At one point, Solomon rejected the “teen’s” advances, stating specifically he thought this was “a setup by cops or a website.” This only resulted in Detective Luvera increasing her pleas for illegal sex and amping up the sexual content of the messages. The appellate court’s analysis tracks the trial court’s distaste for the state’s actions. But, as it notes, the government is cut so much slack in so many edge cases, precedential decisions on the topic are few and far between.

A decade later, for the first time, a claim of outrageous governmental misconduct was presented to the Supreme Court in a case in which a full trial court record was extant. In State v. Athan,law enforcement officers, “posing as a fictitious law firm, induced Athan to mail a letter to the firm.” 160 Wn.2d 354, 362, 158 P.3d 27 (2007). They did so in order to obtain a sample of his DNA.

That’s what the Washington state court has to work with after 100+ years of jurisprudence: one case roughly on point involving something which seems less violative of due process rights. (More of a 4th Amendment violation than a 14th Amendment violation.) The trial court certainly didn’t need a bunch of precedent on hand to find the government’s behavior disgusting. The appellate decision quotes it at length on the way to upholding the lower court’s findings. In this case, the only thing propelling the sting forward was the government. Seven times the defendant tried to disengage and seven times the detective assailed him with increasingly-graphic text messages. And all of this stems from an action the government took: the placement of an ad in an area of Craigslist where all ad posters were supposed to be over the age of 18.

Here’s just a small part of the trail court’s oral comments on the sheriff department’s actions (NSFW in parts):

I can’t believe the detective would want to go to trial on this and subject this language to citizens. I’m just going to give you a little tidbit. At 3:17 on Wednesday, September 17th, the detective says, “OMG U R so fing hung baby!!! VVTF . . . I’m so amped up after seeing this. I have wait for my sister to leave and I am gonna video tape me finger banging me to ur plc! Can’t u cum and see me now!!!” Yeah, that’s repugnant. I don’t care how you cut that pie. You can be a seasoned old sailor or whatever, but that is repugnant. That’s a detective letting line out very fast on a free spool trying to get Mr. Solomon back in the game. And there is no other way to — there is no other way to describe it. It’s outrageous. That is repugnant. It’s egregious.

The appeals court sums this all up with a couple of concise paragraphs.

In ruling to dismiss the charges, the trial court did not adopt a view that no reasonable judge would take. Given the court’s finding that law enforcement had initiated and controlled the criminal activity, persistently solicited Solomon to commit the crimes so initiated, and acted in a manner (through the use of language and otherwise) repugnant to the trial judge’s view of the community’s sense of justice, the trial court’s determination was tenable.

Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering that the charges against Solomon be dismissed. There was no error.

This isn’t how you catch criminals. This is how you manufacture criminals. Much like the ATF’s stash house stings and a great many of the FBI’s terrorist investigations, the government does 99% of the work and jails the unlucky person who has been coerced and cajoled into doing something they likely would have never done if the government hadn’t instigated it. A good call here by both courts working without almost zero precedent. Unfortunately, the lack of precedent doesn’t suggest a well-behaved government. Instead, it points to a whole lot of judicial slack being cut over the years.

Filed Under: entrapment, law enforcement, skagit county sheriff, sting, theresa luvera
Companies: craigslist

School Can't Take A Joke; Turns Student Over To Cops For Listing The School For Sale On Craigslist

from the adminstrators-stripped-of-human-traits-during-hiring-process dept

Recent school shootings have led to heightened reactions from school officials and law enforcement. An over-correction of sorts — thanks to the shooter in Florida having been brought to law enforcement’s attention several times prior to the shooting — has resulted in the arrest of hundreds of students across the nation.

The problem isn’t so much treating potential threats as credible until proven otherwise. The problem is there’s so very little subtlety applied. Things that should not be perceived as threats are, and even when they’re determined to be either unfounded or not actually a threat, some schools decide their misperceptions are more important than the reality of the situation. (h/t Reason)

The graduating class of Truman High School in Independence, Missouri brainstormed senior pranks. Kylan Scheele came up with a pretty decent idea. He posted his school for sale on Craigslist.

The ad read:

Truman High School – $12725

Huge 20+ room facility. Newly build football field. Baseball Field to the SE. Newly added 4 modern day rooms. Has: Centralized air, heating, plumbing. Next to Walmart for convenience Huge parking lot, great for partygoers looking for somewhere to park Bigger than normal dinning room. Multi stove, oven, fridge and other appliances in the kitchen. Reason for sale is due to the loss of students coming up. Named after hometown resident U.S. President Harry S. Truman and his family.

About as innocuous of a prank anyone could have played on the school, one would think. But one would probably not be Truman High School administration. They turned it over to law enforcement.

Detectives with the Independence Police Department investigated the incident and found no probable cause or reason to pursue criminal charges. The had Scheele delete the post and advised him to talk to school adminstrators.

“They [detectives] didn’t see a credible threat,” Clark said. “They all kind of had a little chuckle about it but they wanted him to understand you could see how other people could see it as a threat.”

And how could people see this as a threat? Well, the school seized on one line of the faux ad: “loss of students coming up.” Obviously, this referred to the pending graduation. The school, however, somehow read this to mean Scheele planned on harming the student body. That prompted the handover to police. And when it was handed back, the school doubled down on its “seriousness.”

We take student safety very seriously and appreciate the students and parents who brought this to our attention. Out of an abundance of caution, administrators and police investigated and determined there was not a credible threat. A student who makes a real or implied threat, whether it is deemed credible or not, will face discipline. Due to the heightened concern nationally with school violence, we have extra police officers for the remainder of the school year and will have additional officers at graduations for all of our high schools.

Good lord. So, the non-threat the police considered non-threatening has resulted in Scheele’s suspension and his ban from the graduation ceremony. The “implied threat” the school somehow read into a statement about graduating seniors is keeping one student from getting his diploma with his classmates.

It’s also resulted in a lawsuit [PDF]. The ACLU represented Scheele in his demand for a restraining order blocking the school from blocking him from picking up his diploma at the graduation ceremony. Filed May 25th, the court has already ruled in favor of the school.

The school has also refused to back down, claiming the bogus ad caused “substantial disruption” and resulted in multiple parents retrieving their kids from school. (Wonder how much of that was due to the school informing parents it had turned over a “credible” threat to law enforcement?) As the lawsuit pointed out, there’s no way the student intended to cause a disruption and no “reasonable” person could have imagined the outcome would have been school officials attempting to turn a satirical “for sale” ad into a criminal offense. The disruption was of the school’s own making, but the punishment will be borne solely by the student who posted the ad.

Filed Under: humor, jokes, kyle scheele, missouri, police, pranks, threats, truman high school
Companies: craigslist

SESTA's First Victim: Craigslist Shuts Down Personals Section

from the more-to-come dept

It’s not like people didn’t warn about this. But, following Congress passing SESTA (likely to be signed soon by the President), a bunch of sites are already starting to make changes. Craiglist is probably the most notable, announcing that it was completely shutting down its Personals Section:

US Congress just passed HR 1865, “FOSTA”, seeking to subject websites to criminal and civil liability when third parties (users) misuse online personals unlawfully.

Any tool or service can be misused. We can’t take such risk without jeopardizing all our other services, so we are regretfully taking craigslist personals offline. Hopefully we can bring them back some day.

To the millions of spouses, partners, and couples who met through craigslist, we wish you every happiness!

This is interesting on multiple levels, since the moral panic against online sites that eventually resulted in SESTA actually did start with Craiglist nearly a decade ago, with various state Attorneys General ganging up on the company — despite no legal basis — even threatening criminal charges. Because of all that, Craigslist eventually shut down its “adult” section, which was really what pushed Backpage into the spotlight.

And, as we noted last fall, a recent study showed that when Craigslist shut down its adult section, there was a dramatic increase in homicide, which many attributed to sex workers being unable to use the website to screen clients and protect themselves.

But, either way, the site dropped its adult section entirely all the way back in 2010. And, yet, now it realized it must shut its entire personals section, or potentially face crippling criminal liability. Remember how all the SESTA supporters insisted that SESTA would only target those willfully supporting sex trafficking and wouldn’t do anything against other sites? That’s already been proven wrong.

There are some additional reports of sites or online services no longer working, though it’s not clear if any of them are directly because of SESTA or not, and at least some of them appear to be “escort” sites, which SESTA was clearly targeting anyway (so not “collateral” damage). Some are also suggesting that Reddit closing some subreddits is connected to SESTA as well, though the link there is not entirely clear either.

But a straight up “personals” site like Craigslist? It’s certainly at risk (as is any online dating site) of being declared in violation of SESTA. We’ll be seeing the fallout from SESTA for quite some time.

Filed Under: cda 230, censorship, dating, free speech, intermediary liability, personals, sesta
Companies: craigslist

Study On Craigslist Shutting 'Erotic Services' Shows SESTA May Hurt Those It Purports To Help

from the good-intentions-do-not-make-good-policy dept

The last two posts I wrote about SESTA discussed how, if it passes, it will result in collateral damage to the important speech interests Section 230 is intended to protect. This post discusses how it will also result in collateral damage to the important interests that SESTA itself is intended to protect: those of vulnerable sex workers.

Concerns about how SESTA would affect them are not new: several anti-trafficking advocacy groups and experts have already spoken out about how SESTA, far from ameliorating the risk of sexual exploitation, will only exacerbate the risk of it in no small part because it disables one of the best tools for fighting it: the Internet platforms themselves:

[Using the vilified Backpage as an example, in as much as] Backpage acts as a channel for traffickers, it also acts as a point of connection between victims and law enforcement, family, good samaritans, and NGOs. Countless news reports and court documents bear out this connection. A quick perusal of news stories shows that last month, a mother found and recovered her daughter thanks to information in an ad on Backpage; a brother found his sister the same way; and a family alerted police to a missing girl on Backpage, leading to her recovery. As I have written elsewhere, NGOs routinely comb the website to find victims. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times famously ?pulled out [his] laptop, opened up Backpage and quickly found seminude advertisements for [a victim], who turned out to be in a hotel room with an armed pimp,? all from the victim?s family?s living room. He emailed the link to law enforcement, which staged a raid and recovered the victim.

And now there is yet more data confirming what these experts have been saying: when there have been platforms available to host content for erotic services, it has decreased the risk of harm to sex workers.

The September 2017 study, authored by West Virginia University and Baylor University economics and information systems experts, analyzes rates of female homicides in various cities before and after Craigslist opened an erotic services section on its website. The authors found a shocking 17 percent decrease in homicides with female victims after Craigslist erotic services were introduced.

The reasons for these numbers aren’t entirely clear, but there does seem to be a direct correlation in the safety to sex workers when, thanks to the availability of online platforms, they can “move indoors.”

Once sex workers move indoors, they are much safer for a number of reasons, Cunningham said. When you?re indoors, ?you can screen your clients more efficiently. When you?re soliciting a client on the street, there is no real screening opportunity. The sex worker just has to make the split second decision. She relies on very limited and complete information about the client?s identity and purposes. Whereas when a sex worker solicits indoors through digital means, she has Google, she has a lot of correspondence, she can ask a lot of questions. It?s not perfect screening, but it?s better.?

The push for SESTA seems to be predicated on the unrealistic notion that all we need to do to end sex trafficking is end the ability of sex services to use online platforms. But evidence suggests that removing the “indoor” option that the Internet affords doesn’t actually end sex work; it simply moves it to the outdoors, where it is vastly less safe.

In 2014, Monroe was a trafficking victim in California. She found her clients by advertising on SFRedbook, the free online erotic services website. One day, she logged into the site and discovered that federal authorities had taken it down. Law enforcement hoped that closing the site would reduce trafficking, but it didn?t help Monroe. When she told her pimp SFRedbook was gone, he shrugged. Then he told her that she would just have to work outdoors from then on.

?When they closed down Redbook, they pushed me to the street,? Monroe told ThinkProgress. ?We had a set limit we had to make a day, which was more people, cheaper dates, and if you didn?t bring that home, it was ugly.? Monroe, who asked that her last name be withheld for privacy reasons, had been working through Redbook in hotel rooms almost without incident, but working outdoors was much less safe.

?I got raped and robbed a couple of times,? she said. ?You?re in people?s cars, which means nobody can hear you if you get robbed or beaten up.?

A recurrent theme here on Techdirt is that, as with any technology policy, no matter how well-intentioned it is, whether or not it is a good policy depends on its unintended consequences. Not only do we need to worry about how a policy affects other worthwhile interests, but it also needs to consider how it affects the interest it seeks to vindicate. And in this case SESTA stands to harm the very people it ostensibly seeks to help.

Does that mean Congress should do nothing to address sex trafficking? Of course not, and it is considering many more options that more directly address the serious harms that arise from sex trafficking. Even Section 230 as it currently exists does not prevent the government from going after platforms if they directly aid it. But all too often regulators like to take shortcuts and target platforms simply because bad people may be using them in bad ways. It’s a temptation that needs to be resisted for many reasons, but not the least of which is that doing so may enable bad people to behave even worse.

Filed Under: erotic services, safety, sesta, sex workers
Companies: craigslist

Journalists Blaming Facebook For Decline Is Just As Tiresome As When They Blamed Craigslist & Google

from the time-to-innovate dept

The Guardian’s Roy Greenslade recently published a column about “why Facebook is public enemy number one for newspapers in journalism.” It’s a bunch of complete nonsense. I won’t go through the whole thing, but here’s just a snippet:

Facebook?s increasing dominance over advertising is causing the laying off of journalists, the people who produce the news that it transmits to its users.

The logical conclusion to that process is not only the destruction of old media, legacy media, mainstream media, whatever you want to call it, but the end of journalism as we know it.

Yeah. Okay. Let’s be clear: this is bullshit. As Ben Thompson pointed out, the decline of newspaper revenue predates Facebook, by a lot:

Indeed, it seems that as newspaper revenue has declined, screaming newspaper reporters have been looking for a “dot com” to blame, every step of the way, rather than looking inwardly at their own failures to adapt to a changing marketplace. I remember, not too long ago, when it wasn’t Facebook that was killing the news business, but Craigslist. I mean, everyone said it was true:

And, of course, after it was all Craigslist’s fault, it was, undoubtedly, the fault of Google and its Google News product. That’s why Europe is so busy trying to force Google to pay for newspapers that it links to. And, of course, once again, lots of media folks jumped on the blame Google bandwagon:

A few notes on some of the above links. The “study” that is cited in some of the first batch about how Craigslist is “killing” newspapers was from the Pew Research Center — the very same research shop that Greenslade points to in the link up at the top of this article blaming Facebook. Second, that first article in the second list, about Bob Woodward blaming Google… is also by Greenslade. Yet, in that case, Greenslade mocks Woodward for blaming Google (and very kindly provides a link to me mocking Woodward’s silly claims.

So let’s get a few things out of the way here: Newspapers are struggling. They absolutely are. But it’s not “because” of Facebook (or Craigslist or Google). Newspapers were going to struggle with the rise of the internet no matter what, because it laid bare the basic coincidence that made newspapers profitable despite themselves. For many, many years, we’ve been pointing out that the true business of newspapers was a community business, rather than a news business. It’s just that in the pre-internet days, newspapers had a bit of a monopoly on being able to build communities — often local communities — around the news. But they had very little competition in that business, other than maybe a few other local newspapers (though consolidation took care of that in most markets). The business, then, of newspapers was taking the attention they received from that community, and selling it to advertisers.

The internet structurally changed all of this, by creating all sorts of other areas where people could congregate and build communities. That’s kind of what the internet is good at. And suddenly there’s a ton of competition in the community space. But newspapers, incorrectly thinking they were in the “news” business, often made decisions that actively harmed the community aspect. They put up paywalls. They took away the ability to comment. They made it harder for local communities of interest to form.

So what happened? The communities and their (valuable) attention went elsewhere. And, these days, much of that “elsewhere” when it comes to communities is Facebook.

And, just like Google before it, Facebook has actually created a pretty valuable channel for sending people to your news website. Many publishers haven’t figured this out yet — or how to harness it. Hell, just a month or so ago, I was talking about how we here at Techdirt haven’t figured this out at all (we get depressingly little traffic from Facebook compared to many of our peers). But you won’t see us blaming Facebook for this. It’s on us. Have our ad rates dropped off a cliff? Yes. Is that Facebook’s fault? Hell no. Even if all the advertising money that used to go to newspapers and news sites magically shifted to Facebook (which it hasn’t), then it would be because of a failure on the part of those news companies to offer a better overall product for advertisers.

It’s time for publications to stop blaming every new technology site that comes along, and to focus on actually adapting, changing and finding new business models that work. It may not be easy. And many will crash and burn completely. But that’s not the “fault” of these new companies at all.

Filed Under: ad rates, blame, journalism, news, social media, technology
Companies: craigslist, facebook, google

The Unbelievably True Story Of How Craigslist Murdered Over 100 People

from the the-real-killer-here-are-the-killers dept

It’s time to panic about Craigslist again. If it’s not a key player in the human trafficking scene, it’s the unwitting accomplice in over 100 murders.

[A]ccording to the Advanced Interactive Media Group, an industry watchdog and analyst, Craigslist passed the 100-murder mark just three weeks ago, when a 22-year-old man from Gary, Ind., attempted to rob the middle-aged couple who’d arranged to buy his car.

Frankly, I’m surprised the number isn’t higher. Not because Craigslist is the best thing that happened to pimps and murders since the invention of the internet, but because it encompasses nearly every major and minor city in the United States.

And, seriously: “Craigslist passed the 100-murder mark?” I realize “users of Craigslist passed the 100-murder mark” is a much clunkier sentence, but this sounds like it was written by a grandstanding sheriff, rather than a journalist.

Not only is it accessible by a vast majority of the US population, but its reach goes far beyond the buying and selling of goods. It also handles personal ads, searches for roommates and dozens of other ways for two strangers to meet face-to-face.

Sure, the voice behind this latest “let’s worry about Craigslist” isn’t a misguided government official or law enforcement officer with an anti-sex worker ax to grind. It’s AIM’s Peter Zollman, who’s put together a completely not-for-profit SafeTrade “initiative,” which helps set up safe areas for meetups and transactions, usually with the assistance of local law enforcement.

But to suggest this is a Craigslist problem — rather than a human being problem — is off-base. Nevertheless, Zollman makes this assertion:

Zollman and other critics say Craigslist has done “next to nothing” to encourage safe use or deter criminals. Among other things, the site doesn’t provide safety information unless a user explicitly seeks it out, and the company has not endorsed any third-party efforts — like Zollman’s own campaign to create “SafeTrade” spots at local police stations.

Zollman wants the site to make safety warnings more prominent and to get behind some sort of “safe trading” program, whether his or someone else’s. But his company’s tracking of “Craigslist murders” tries to imply it is somehow worse than the old system of classified ads in newspapers — which arguably led to an exponentially higher number of murders than Craigslist has, even given the limited, very local reach of most papers.

Zollman’s take on Craigslist is decidedly more measured than it was a few years ago, when he referred to it as a “cesspool of crime.” Unfortunately, his willingness to play into fearful narratives that sell better than more measured takes on the issue undercuts the sincerity of his “SafeTrade” offer. And it does nothing to dissuade law enforcement and other government officials from attacking Craigslist for the acts of a very, very, very slim minority of its users.

Even when Zollman takes into account the positives of Craigslist, he still undercuts his own arguments by saying things like the company’s “ethos of anonymity” makes it prime territory for criminal behavior — something that throws shade at Craigslist and anonymity, as if both of these elements were inherently suspect, rather than just being treated as so much thrown baby/bathwater by the SafeTrade founder.

Common sense and personal responsibility are in short supply, which is why people are always happy to suggest it’s the platforms they use that should be doing more, rather than doing anything of their own will and volition. Meeting a stranger always carries a risk. Doing so while carrying lots of cash even more so. (However, given the ubiquity of asset forfeiture programs, I’d be somewhat wary about taking large sums of cash to a police station…) I agree Craigslist should feature safety information more prominently, but then again, nothing in its warning is groundbreaking or otherwise unavailable to potential users.

And Zollman’s murder tracker would be a lot more honest if it were simply a list of people who’ve used Craigslist to facilitate their criminal acts, rather than giving the impression that Craigslist is somehow, in some very minimal way, responsible for these incidents.

Filed Under: blame, murder, peter zollman, platforms
Companies: advanced interactive media group, craigslist

Appeals Court Issues Fantastic 1st Amendment Ruling Against Censorious Sheriff Thomas Dart In His Crusade Against The Internet

from the go-away dept

We’ve written about Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart and his desire to censor the internet for a few years now. Back in 2009, he sued Craigslist because he claimed it was “the single largest source of prostitution in the nation.” As we noted at the time, Craigslist was just a platform, and suing it made no sense at all — especially given that the company was more than willing to cooperate closely with law enforcement and help them track down people who were breaking the law online. In other words, whereas a sheriff who was actually interested in stopping law breaking might embrace the site and work with it to track down law breakers, Dart chose to sue the toolmaker. That lawsuit failed miserably, but Sheriff Dart never gave up his quixotic quest to blame internet companies for prostitution.

Over the past few years, Backpage.com has taken over the boogeyman reputation previously held by Craigslist when it comes to online prostitution. Back in July of this year, Dart proudly announced that he had scared Visa and Mastercard out of working with Backpage after he sent them a misleading letter effectively threatening them if they did not stop working with Backpage. Backpage quickly sued Dart and within weeks received a temporary restraining order, with the court wasting no time claiming that Dart’s actions in getting Visa and Mastercard to stop doing business with Backpage was unconstitutional prior restraint. However, the court later appeared to change its mind and refused to issue an injunction, saying that while Dart’s letter could be construed as a threat, it wasn’t censorship since he had no legal authority over the payment companies.

Backpage quickly appealed to the Seventh Circuit appeals court — which has now absolutely trashed Dart in a decision written by Judge Richard Posner. The entire ruling is well worth reading, but here are a few excerpts. Posner does not find the lower court’s reasoning convincing at all, quoting Okwedy v. Molinari to explain why:

?The fact that a public-official defendant lacks direct regulatory or decisionmaking authority over a plaintiff, or a third party that is publishing or otherwise disseminating the plaintiff?s message, is not necessarily dispositive ? . What matters is the distinction between attempts to convince and attempts to coerce. A public-official defendant who threatens to employ coercive state power to stifle protected speech violates a plaintiff?s First Amendment rights, regardless of whether the threatened punishment comes in the form of the use (or, misuse) of the defendant?s direct regulatory or decisionmaking authority over the plaintiff, or in some less-direct form.?

Posner is well aware of Dart’s previous failed attempt to sue Craigslist and notes the obvious intention of the letter to payment companies:

The suit against Craigslist having failed, the sheriff decided to proceed against Backpage not by litigation but instead by suffocation, depriving the company of ad revenues by scaring off its payments-service providers. The analogy is to killing a person by cutting off his oxygen supply rather than by shooting him. Still, if all the sheriff were doing to crush Backpage was done in his capacity as a private citizen rather than as a government official (and a powerful government official at that), he would be within his rights. But he is using the power of his office to threaten legal sanctions against the credit-card companies for facilitating future speech, and by doing so he is violating the First Amendment unless there is no constitutionally protected speech in the ads on Backpage?s website?and no one is claiming that. The First Amendment forbids a public official to attempt to suppress the protected speech of private persons by threatening that legal sanctions will at his urging be imposed unless there is compliance with his demands….

Central to Backpage?s case is a letter of June 29 of this year that Sheriff Dart sent both to MasterCard?s CEO and Board of Directors and to the corresponding personnel of Visa. The letter is on stationery captioned ?Office of the Sheriff,? and begins: ?As the Sheriff of Cook County, a father and a caring citizen, I write to request that your institution immediately cease and desist from allowing your credit cards to be used to place ads on websites like Backpage. com.? Notice that he is sheriff first, father and citizen second; notice his use of the legal term ?cease and desist?; notice that he calls MasterCard ?your institution,? implying that the same letter is going to other ?institutions??namely other credit card companies?in other words that he is organizing a boycott. And notice that he doesn?t demand that ?your institution? refuse to allow ?your credit cards? to be used to pay just for ads on Backpage?s website that promote illegal products or services?he demands that ?your institution? cease and desist from placing any ads ?on websites like Backpage.com? (and a fortiori on Backpage?s own website) even though ?adult? ads are only one of eleven types of classified ad published on the website. Visa and MasterCard got the message and cut all their ties to Backpage.

The letter goes on to state that ?it has become increasingly indefensible for any corporation to continue to willfully play a central role in an industry that reaps its cash from the victimization of women and girls across the world.? The implication, given whom the letter is addressed to, is that credit card companies, such as MasterCard and Visa, ?willfully play a central role? in a criminal activity (emphases added)?so they had better stop! Indeed, the letter goes on to say, those companies are ?key? to the ?growth? of sex trafficking in the United States. (Actually, as explained in an amicus curiae brief filed by the Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, and DKT Liberty Project, citing voluminous governmental and academic studies, there are no reliable statistics on which Sheriff Dart could base a judgment that sex trafficking has been increasing in the United States.) He is intimating that two of the world?s largest credit card companies may be criminal accomplices.

?Financial institutions,? the letter continues, ?have the legal duty to file ?Suspicious Activity Reports? to authorities in cases of human trafficking and sexual exploitation of minors.? The letter cites the federal money-laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1956, thereby intimating that the credit card companies could be prosecuted for processing payments made by purchasers of the ads on Backpage that promote unlawful sexual activity, such as prostitution. And ?make no mistake,? the letter thunders: ?Your [credit] cards have and will continue to be used to buy ads that sell children for sex on sites like Backpage.com. ? The use of credit cards in this violent industry implies an undeserved credibility and sense of normalcy to such illicit transactions and only serves to increase demand.?

And then, Posner notes, Dart makes his threat pretty damn clear:

And here?s the kicker: ?Within the next week, please provide me with contact information for an individual within your organization that I can work with [harass, pester] on this issue.? The ?I? is Sheriff Dart, not private citizen Dart? the letter was signed by ?Thomas Dart, Cook County Sheriff.? And the letter was not merely an expression of Sheriff Dart?s opinion. It was designed to compel the credit card companies to act by inserting Dart into the discussion; he?ll be chatting them up. Further insight into the purpose and likely effect of such a letter is provided by a strategy memo written by a member of the sheriff?s staff in advance of the letter. The memo suggested approaching the credit card companies (whether by phone, mail, email, or a visit in person) with threats in the form of ?reminders? of ?their own potential liability for allowing suspected illegal transactions to continue to take place? and their potential susceptibility to ?money laundering prosecutions ? and/or hefty fines.? Allusion to that ?susceptibility? was the culminating and most ominous threat in the letter.

Posner further notes that if an ordinary citizen had sent a letter with similar requests, and without the “demands,” the payment companies likely would have been “discarded or filed away.” Posner gets down to the truth of the matter:

Visa and MasterCard were victims of government coercion aimed at shutting up or shutting down Backpage?s adult section (more likely aimed at bankrupting Backpage–lest the ads that the sheriff doesn?t like simply migrate to other sections of the website), when it is unclear that Backpage is engaged in illegal activity, and if it is not then the credit card companies cannot be accomplices and should not be threatened as accomplices by the sheriff and his staff.

Posner points out that Section 230 protects Backpage from liability and the hints that Mastercard and Visa might be liable for federal crimes (which are exempt from Section 230) are ludicrous. He also knocks Dart for suggesting that all ads in the adult section of Backpage are illegal themselves, noting that plenty of it is perfectly legal, including fetishism and phone sex.

And thus:

As a citizen or father, or in any other private capacity, Sheriff Dart can denounce Backpage to his heart?s content. He is in good company; many people are disturbed or revolted by the kind of sex ads found on Backpage?s website. And even in his official capacity the sheriff can express his distaste for Backpage and its look-alikes; that is, he can exercise what is called ?[freedom of] government speech.?… A government entity, including therefore the Cook County Sheriff?s Office, is entitled to say what it wants to say?but only within limits. It is not permitted to employ threats to squelch the free speech of private citizens. ?[A] government?s ability to express itself is [not] without restriction. ? [T]he Free Speech Clause itself may constrain the government?s speech.?

Posner clearly notes the potential slippery slope:

For where would such official bullying end, were it permitted to begin? Some public officials doubtless disapprove of bars, or pets and therefore pet supplies, or yard sales, or lawyers, or ?plug the band? (a listing of music performances that includes such dubious offerings as ?SUPERCELL Rocks Halloween at The Matchbox Bar & Grill?), or men dating men or women dating women?but ads for all these things can be found in non-adult sections of Backpage and it would be a clear abuse of power for public officials to try to eliminate them not by expressing an opinion but by threatening credit card companies or other suppliers of payment services utilized by customers of Backpage, or other third parties, with legal or other coercive governmental action.

Finally, Judge Posner rejects the lower court’s claims that issuing an injunction would hurt Dart’s own First Amendment rights:

The judge was further mistaken when he said that ?the Sheriff?s own First Amendment rights are at stake in this case and the Court must therefore also consider the risk that erroneously entering an injunction would chill Dart?s own right to speak out on issues of public concern. Sheriff Dart has a First Amendment right to publicly criticize the credit card companies for any connection to illegal activity, as longas he stops short of threats? (emphasis added). But the judge himself, in the passages we quoted earlier, had been emphatic that Dart had not stopped short of threats. Those threats were not protected by the First Amendment; they were violations of the First Amendment.

This ruling has lots of great quotes that may be quite useful elsewhere. Over the years we’ve seen many politicians make similar threats — often to similar results. Remember when former Senator Joe Lieberman pressured Amazon to stop hosting Wikileaks? And similar pressure led Mastercard and Visa to stop accepting donations for Wikileaks as well — apparently in a deal with US diplomats. Lieberman (that guy again?!?) also famously put pressure on Google to censor websites that he deemed as promoting “terrorism” and similarly pressured Twitter to silence the feeds of people he didn’t like. He also threatened the NY Times for publishing Wikileaks’ documents.

And, of course, in just the last few weeks, we’ve seen increasing pressure from government entities potentially demanding censorship online of “bad” content in the wake of the Paris attacks. Hopefully, this ruling by Posner will provide a useful tool to combat such censorship. While it technically only applies in the 7th Circuit, Posner’s rulings are influential in other circuits as well. Of course, there’s a chance that Sheriff Dart will decide to waste more taxpayer money and seek for an en banc rehearing in the 7th Circuit or even ask the Supreme Court to hear the case as well. If so, this could become a key free speech case concerning government coercion to silence online speech.

Filed Under: 7th circuit, adult ads, censorship, first amendment, free speech, richard posner, thomas dart, threats
Companies: backpage, backpage.com, craigslist, mastercard, visa