[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.

[qb45]

Immediately after nakedness it mentions she was wearing something.

Not 100% sure but I'm under impression that there are ways in the US to legally take down any CP. I haven't yet seen a single semi-legit website which allows it, even 4chan etc. Maybe I'm wrong, in such case just disregard this point - the rest still stands.