[moomin]

Mate, I have no time for swerfs or "moral majority" puritans. They can all go die in a fire. But people in positions of power who knowingly allow child sex trafficking to go on on their site whilst taking every action to protect _themselves_ but not _the children_? I don't care how rarely they did it, it's like saying you only rarely murdered someone.

And yeah, escorts should be free to advertise their services on the internet and pretty much every law relating to consensual prostitution should just plain be ripped up. But I'm not going to shed a tear over Backpages.

[mst]

This article is entirely written from the POV of the complainants though, and I'd note that backpage's actual shutdown of that section was due to repeated bad faith attacks from law enforcement, not due to the incident in question.

Maybe backpage fumbled handling it, but their track record for helping in such cases is rather better than the article implies. See also, for example, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/10/backpage-adu... where opinions are divided and https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/backpage-sex-workers... which suggests backpage is actually a tool for supporting workers.

Assuming backpage is exactly as bad as a single lawsuit against them claims is not, IMO, a particularly good way to form an opinion.