[Pxtl]

Oof. Penny-wise, pound-sociopathic. I wonder how high up this went? I mean, "management" could be just a low-level moderation supervisor barely above the "moderator" role themselves, or could be somebody just under the C-levels.

[DanBC]

It was absolutely at the top of the company.

See the photo caption: "In court: (from left) Carl Ferrer, James Larkin, Andrew Padilla and Michael Lacey are sworn-in prior to testifying before the Senate earlier this year. Photograph: Cliff Owen/AP" -- these people knew Backpage was being used to traffic children to be raped, and they fought in court to be allowed to continue to do so.

The I am Jane Doe film is a good documentary that covers the events.

[yorwba]

That Backpage's C-suite appeared in court does not somehow imply that they were willingly complicit in child abuse. However, the fact that they plead the Fifth does look pretty damning. While it can't be used against them in a court of law, the court of public opinion is a different matter entirely.

[jacquesm]

Or it could be all of the top level managers. What it could be doesn't really matter though, what matters is what it really was.

[DanBC]

When a low level manager institutes a policy to tell child rapists not to use the term "amber alert" in ads that's a really bad thing.

When the owners of the company approve that policy, and spend years in repeated court cases to defend the ads, claiming that they're powerless to stop the ads and even if they weren't powerless to stop the ads they don't need to because that's the law: that's a completely different level if evil.

[jacquesm]

Yes, which is exactly why this case should be dug out until this is known with as great a precision as possible, who knew of this, who collaborated and who - including investors, shareholders what have you - let it happen to line their own pockets.

I find it hard to believe that such a policy could ever be created without the managers buy in or tacit consent (maybe to create plausible deniability).

If it proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they all knew of this and allowed it then I'm all for piercing the corporate veil and going after all their assets, including private ones and shareholder assets unless it is totally clear that they did not know about this to compensate the victims.

Just some bits from the linked article:

"“I called Backpage dozens of times asking them to take down those photos, that my daughter was just a child and that what had been done to her was a crime,” says Kubiiki. “They refused and said if I didn’t pay for it, they couldn’t take it down. In the end they just stopped returning my calls.”"

That alone makes them complete scumbags, the rest of what's documented in the article should make a good basis for a criminal case against them.

[Pxtl]

> "“I called Backpage dozens of times asking them to take down those photos, that my daughter was just a child and that what had been done to her was a crime,” says Kubiiki. “They refused and said if I didn’t pay for it, they couldn’t take it down. In the end they just stopped returning my calls.”"

I know. This is where it goes to almost cartoonish villainy.

I'm honestly bewildered how this even happens. This must have escalated up the support levels and involved several people, and one individual listing that isn't even applicable anymore can't be a huge revenue source for them. Even assuming that it's a company led by amoral psychopaths, why push back for so little gain? how did nobody in the chain of information say "what the hell are we doing"?

[qb45]

Possibly to protect the "neutrality and freedom of speech" argument - it's 3rd party content, we only publish, it doesn't contain actual nudity so CP laws don't apply, go ask the poster to take it down, we can't help you.

And then in court: it's 3rd party content, we only publish, we only remove when required by law, posters are responsible for everything.

Of course this cover is busted if they really edited those ads.

[yorwba]

From the article:

> “At first I didn’t see the nakedness or what she was wearing or the poses she was in, but then it began to sink in, what the ad was for, and everything just fell apart.”

This does seem to imply actual nudity, which makes it even more surprising they didn't immediately take it down when it was pointed out to them.