Monday, September 6, 2010
craigslist sycophants are speeding up the changing of the law believed to allow craigslist to worsen all sort of ills
...and no major overhaul would be needed, just to specify what to me appears to be obvious: that if you *know* (or should reasonably know) that things like child trafficking are rampant on your site, you HAVE TO adequately screen in order to get rid of those ads! and that goes for *all* your site... D.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
(craigslist's role in increased prostitution/child trafficking) I just don't get Jeff Jarvis...
MORE: I don't know if I should be surprised... Jeff Jarvis didn't post my comment (comment number 423908): on the one hand, he's never acted coardish towards me in the past (maybe I didn't give him much of a chance, I don't know, just posted lightly on his blog few years back), on the other hand Craig probably leaned on him as usual... D.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/09/05/regulating-sex-and-speech/#comment-423908
re: "The argument has been that craigslist ads are used to serve human sex trafficking. Except craigslist has been openly and consistently helping police in their efforts to arrest traffickers"
Jeff, I'm trying to understand you but I'm having a really hard time...
Just what do you think is the percentage of traffickers that *can* be apprehended? The police has very limited resources...I somehow doubt you don't know that.
How does the minute percentage of those apprehended compare with the increase in such crimes due to the ease of accomplishing the crime with craigslist's help (the most efficient known way to advertise -- 3 times more efficient than places like backpage)?
Providing a very efficient place for initiating prostitution (including trafficking of children) is almost surely dramatically increasing the amount of overall harm. Generally, the harder it is to commit the crime, the less of it actually happens... none of this is rocket science.
Delia
P.S. are the other places just as responsible? absolutely... just for significantly less added harm (perhaps not for lack of trying, they are just nowhere as efficient); as with most harms, the police/government just can't uniformly go after all of them, so the bigger fish are rightly getting the most attention (craigslist's feedback forum used to tell craigslisters who were complaining that their ad got removed while others also in violation remained on the site that if you are speeding you should expect a ticket even if not everybody gets a ticket -- it's funny how they forget when they are the ones speeding three times faster than anybody else around). D.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/09/05/regulating-sex-and-speech/#comment-423908
re: "The argument has been that craigslist ads are used to serve human sex trafficking. Except craigslist has been openly and consistently helping police in their efforts to arrest traffickers"
Jeff, I'm trying to understand you but I'm having a really hard time...
Just what do you think is the percentage of traffickers that *can* be apprehended? The police has very limited resources...I somehow doubt you don't know that.
How does the minute percentage of those apprehended compare with the increase in such crimes due to the ease of accomplishing the crime with craigslist's help (the most efficient known way to advertise -- 3 times more efficient than places like backpage)?
Providing a very efficient place for initiating prostitution (including trafficking of children) is almost surely dramatically increasing the amount of overall harm. Generally, the harder it is to commit the crime, the less of it actually happens... none of this is rocket science.
Delia
P.S. are the other places just as responsible? absolutely... just for significantly less added harm (perhaps not for lack of trying, they are just nowhere as efficient); as with most harms, the police/government just can't uniformly go after all of them, so the bigger fish are rightly getting the most attention (craigslist's feedback forum used to tell craigslisters who were complaining that their ad got removed while others also in violation remained on the site that if you are speeding you should expect a ticket even if not everybody gets a ticket -- it's funny how they forget when they are the ones speeding three times faster than anybody else around). D.
Friday, September 3, 2010
unlisted craigslist erotic/adult services review forum???
MORE: Anderson Cooper didn't care to "sit down with Craig/Jim" (left Amber Lyons finish the reporting on the evening of September 6th); did they think he was going to jump to "the honor" or... something else?; there were some articles suggesting Craig/Jim were looking for a way to meet Anderson *socially*... ("for coffee")... Anderson is believed to be gay but, unlike Craig, he gives no reason for making his sexuality known (no publicly known girlfriend or the like); on the other hand, posts claiming Craig is gay still frequently appear on craigslist...
the latest: http://saltlakecity.craigslist.org/rnr/1881490918.html
...
didn't know it existed! (link of http://www.forumslister.com/)
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/forums/?forumID=6996
I guess nothing should surprise...(certainly looks like good evidence for aiding & abetting -- let me know what you think! it is moderated, certain posts have been deleted by staff showing they KNOW what's going on in there; you can find explicit discussions and suggestions of particular "providers" and there is enough detail to see what the "services" are (e.g.); there used to be posted pictures, one poster says...)
thanks to slinkybender!: "They have, in fact, explicitly created "secret" discussion forums for johns on their website -- unadvertised locations set aside from among the 10,000 possible forums available on their servers -- and those forums have been highly active for years."
Delia
P.S. if you have time, listen to the short Jim Buckmaster video (just to see how much wholesomeness he is trying to project) and read the Guardian article where he says they make sure all ads are ok and the comments (two from craigslist users are excellent):
"You've agreed to do more screening of ads. Is that going to change the way you run?
JB: In this one category, we are manually screening each ad to ensure that it's fully compliant before it reaches the site. We're not counting the cost there and we're staffing that function as appropriate and as needed to ensure that every ad is fully screened."
No wonder they are pissed with Amber Lyons...and are trying to get someoneELSE to talk to...
the latest: http://saltlakecity.craigslist.org/rnr/1881490918.html
...
didn't know it existed! (link of http://www.forumslister.com/)
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/forums/?forumID=6996
I guess nothing should surprise...(certainly looks like good evidence for aiding & abetting -- let me know what you think! it is moderated, certain posts have been deleted by staff showing they KNOW what's going on in there; you can find explicit discussions and suggestions of particular "providers" and there is enough detail to see what the "services" are (e.g.); there used to be posted pictures, one poster says...)
thanks to slinkybender!: "They have, in fact, explicitly created "secret" discussion forums for johns on their website -- unadvertised locations set aside from among the 10,000 possible forums available on their servers -- and those forums have been highly active for years."
Delia
P.S. if you have time, listen to the short Jim Buckmaster video (just to see how much wholesomeness he is trying to project) and read the Guardian article where he says they make sure all ads are ok and the comments (two from craigslist users are excellent):
"You've agreed to do more screening of ads. Is that going to change the way you run?
JB: In this one category, we are manually screening each ad to ensure that it's fully compliant before it reaches the site. We're not counting the cost there and we're staffing that function as appropriate and as needed to ensure that every ad is fully screened."
No wonder they are pissed with Amber Lyons...and are trying to get someoneELSE to talk to...
Monday, August 23, 2010
craigslist's role in child trafficking
MORE: best (easiest) legal challenge I see at the moment: by claiming to manually screen all ads, craigslist has become "co-author" of these ads and should be held legally responsible for all problem-ads that appear on the site (since it ok-es them before publication) D.
sorry, got delayed...
Much better media coverage than I've ever seen on this topic! and a lot more people with the ability to really do something (e.g. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley) finally speaking up...
Unfortunately, some people continue to be blinded by craigslist's arguments that they are not ultimately causing the crime so they are thus not responsible.
As with all crimes, willingness to commit the crime is not enough for the crime to actually happen -- the opportunity must also be there. And the greater the opportunity, the more potential crime becomes actual crime. While craigslist is not causing the willingness to exploit children, the existence of it's "adult services" does appear to dramatically increase the opportunity of committing the crime by providing a very effective advertising platform (much more effective than any other known alternative). Getting rid of the "adult section" would not mean there would be no more child trafficking but it may well mean that there would be a whole lot less of it...
If "adult services" MUST exist (and it is a very difficult argument to make that providing an advertising section for the extremely limited situation when "adult ads" may truly be harmless and legal should win out given the reality of increased child trafficking), it could only be justified if screening would be without reproach. This appears to be hardly the case... It's hard to see how lawyers trained to manually screen each ad (3rd paragraph) could accept as many blatant ads observers have found on the site every time they looked... Just how many lawyers were employed? Hardly enough given the job at hand, it appears... Just how much has craigslist spent from the tens of millions it's been collecting in fees from "adult services" ads on combating the problem? an insignificant amount, it appears...
Delia
P.S. worst problem I see at the moment: some well meaning people with the ability to effect change are not keeping child trafficking separate from prostitution in general (I do believe both are a real problem but child trafficking is by far the worst of the two and should be given priority)D.
sorry, got delayed...
Much better media coverage than I've ever seen on this topic! and a lot more people with the ability to really do something (e.g. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley) finally speaking up...
Unfortunately, some people continue to be blinded by craigslist's arguments that they are not ultimately causing the crime so they are thus not responsible.
As with all crimes, willingness to commit the crime is not enough for the crime to actually happen -- the opportunity must also be there. And the greater the opportunity, the more potential crime becomes actual crime. While craigslist is not causing the willingness to exploit children, the existence of it's "adult services" does appear to dramatically increase the opportunity of committing the crime by providing a very effective advertising platform (much more effective than any other known alternative). Getting rid of the "adult section" would not mean there would be no more child trafficking but it may well mean that there would be a whole lot less of it...
If "adult services" MUST exist (and it is a very difficult argument to make that providing an advertising section for the extremely limited situation when "adult ads" may truly be harmless and legal should win out given the reality of increased child trafficking), it could only be justified if screening would be without reproach. This appears to be hardly the case... It's hard to see how lawyers trained to manually screen each ad (3rd paragraph) could accept as many blatant ads observers have found on the site every time they looked... Just how many lawyers were employed? Hardly enough given the job at hand, it appears... Just how much has craigslist spent from the tens of millions it's been collecting in fees from "adult services" ads on combating the problem? an insignificant amount, it appears...
Delia
P.S. worst problem I see at the moment: some well meaning people with the ability to effect change are not keeping child trafficking separate from prostitution in general (I do believe both are a real problem but child trafficking is by far the worst of the two and should be given priority)D.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
(child sex trafficking) will be posting a critique of Jim Buckmaster's response, shortly...
UPDATE
... might take a week or so... Delia
P.S. key issue: they just don't seem to be monitoring! (which they claim they do...so Amber Lyon was right on the money!) D.
... might take a week or so... Delia
P.S. key issue: they just don't seem to be monitoring! (which they claim they do...so Amber Lyon was right on the money!) D.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
child trafficking: I'm happy to see main stream outfits like CNN are finally doing a good job covering this!
MORE
Sold on Craigslist: Critics say sex ad crackdown inadequate -- links within this article (to Malika Saada Saar's article and Jim Buckmaster's article) give a balanced view
Delia
P.S. glad to see there seems to be less and less need for this blog (the questions are being asked, the issues are being raised by others...) D.
Sold on Craigslist: Critics say sex ad crackdown inadequate -- links within this article (to Malika Saada Saar's article and Jim Buckmaster's article) give a balanced view
Delia
P.S. glad to see there seems to be less and less need for this blog (the questions are being asked, the issues are being raised by others...) D.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
[Seth Finkelstein has left a new comment on your post "(aside) zittrain & Harvard's Berkman Center: there...":
Seth,
in case you are reading this, I continue to be stupefied by the way search engines work (google in particular); I thought I was doing everything wrong! I mean... I only post when I feel like it and that ends up leaving weeks if not months with no posts, so how could a post on this blog (an off-topic one at that) rank so high in the google search? (middle of the 2nd page of hits) there must have been loads of people who wrote about the zittrain-berkman-brill-thing! what's really crazy is that *zittain's answer*, addressing Brill's story, ranks *lower* than the entry on my blog... let me know what you think if you get a chance! Thanks! D.
Delia: will be away for a few days; any further comments will be posted here (in the body of the entry) -- will be back Sunday night! D.
STILL MORE:
(http://www.richardbradley.net/shotsinthedark/2010/07/07/jonathan-zittrains-conflict-of-interest/comment-page-1/#comment-24158)
Richard, I think you are one of the people that could do a really good job at this!
Delia
re: http://craigslistcriticism.blogspot.com/2010/07/aside-zittrain-harvards-berkman-center.html
EVEN MORE Delia: the worst situation that I can imagine is that it might have really been a *quid pro quo* (hefty funding for academic appointment) and Lessig got the 1st endowed professorship just to mask this exchange. Daniel Golden's "The Price of Admission; How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges -- and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates" gives good background on how something like this might have worked out. D.
MORE: Seth's follow up post
Of course Zittrain is not naive - I'd say he's one of the most sophisticated and savvy people I've ever met. And someone does not become a professor at Harvard AND Oxford without being able to swim with sharks in some deep very waters indeed. His personal story would be interesting in a certain way, but Emily Brill didn't tell it. The article had much of a petty individual scandal tone against him, which I don't think was justified - and parts of that didn't even seem to be accurate. Again, the broader institutional issues, mentioned later on, are a different matter. Those are orders of magnitude more meaningful.
The fact that the Berkman Center gets plenty of publicity doesn't translate into support for a thorough analysis of it. Remember, journalism is basically gone - it's been replaced by attention-mongering, err, the link economy.
Posted by Seth Finkelstein to craigslist criticism at July 26, 2010 2:05 AM
I agree that she didn't do a very good job at it (and already said that) but I don't know about having necessarily been against him *personally*, rather than against his involvement with the Berkman center.
She *had* to say how she stumbled on the issues in the first place and that was as much of her own personal story (if you want to look at it that way) as it was Zittrain's. To me, her story sounds pretty mundane, I just don't see the scandal in it... : she applied for a job, was invited to sit in one of his classes and started wondering...
I wouldn't be surprised if she lost her chance to get the job once she started asking Zittrain questions about the inside workings of the Berkman center (things like where does the funding come from, which I believe she was entitled to know so she could make an informed decision on whether or not to accept the job if offered). And this is definitely relevant to the story that's worth telling.
Zittrain is by no means dumb but I'm not convinced that he would have become a Harvard Law Professor and had the academic career he ended-up having if he wouldn't have been a major player in setting up the Berkman center. One of the things to look into would be whether or not he had personal ties to the Berkmans and might have talked them into donating money to Harvard for this particular project. I suspect that was the case... I also suspect the Berkmans ended-up giving even *more* money to Harvard for other things and Harvard was grateful for Zitttrain's helping out with fund raising.
And yeah, the institutional level *is* the ultimate concern but it wouldn't have gotten to that point would Harvard had not allowed the Berkman center to be created in the first place. The way it *looks like* to me (and, of course, these are ALL just *my suspicions* -- it would have to be all checked) is that Harvard allowed itself to be corrupted and Zittrain was the one who ultimately made it happen.
Delia
P.S. I meant to say that *Emily Brill's story* got plenty of publicity (not just the Berkman center). So now plenty of people are aware of the issues. I believe there are still some decent journalists out there although their numbers do seem to be dwindling. D.
....
I agree, there's a story, but I'd say Jonathan Zittrain ended up personally scapegoated for what's broad institutional sins. The problem is that the overall story is a lot of research and work, plus one would have to deal with the inevitable push-back from the Berkman Center and allies. It's not an easy topic to write about.
Posted by Seth Finkelstein to craigslist criticism at July 25, 2010 1:31 PM
Seth,
The way I see it, Zittrain MUST have known what he was doing... Heck, he co-founded the monstrosity and served as it's 1st director from 1997 to 2000! Only *after* that period was he made Assistant Professor of Law at Harvard. So you gotta wonder if that was his ticket to getting an academic appointment at Harvard Law School.
The other major players in this (Nesson -- the other co-founder and Lessig -- who held the 1st endowed professorship) were already established academically prior to their involvement with the "academic based" advocacy center.
I do believe this is a story well worth telling and I'd be really surprised if Zittrain would show to have been merely in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I suspect that as time passed there were some significant changes made to counter the appearance (and the actual wrong doing) related to the center. And yeah... it wouldn't be easy and anybody even remotely associated with it would probably try to stop it/detract from it/etc.-- doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth doing! on the contrary...
And I do hope somebody will do a great job at it! (it's got plenty of publicity -- there must be *somebody* out there willing and able to do it)
Delia
in case you are reading this, I continue to be stupefied by the way search engines work (google in particular); I thought I was doing everything wrong! I mean... I only post when I feel like it and that ends up leaving weeks if not months with no posts, so how could a post on this blog (an off-topic one at that) rank so high in the google search? (middle of the 2nd page of hits) there must have been loads of people who wrote about the zittrain-berkman-brill-thing! what's really crazy is that *zittain's answer*, addressing Brill's story, ranks *lower* than the entry on my blog... let me know what you think if you get a chance! Thanks! D.
Delia: will be away for a few days; any further comments will be posted here (in the body of the entry) -- will be back Sunday night! D.
STILL MORE:
(http://www.richardbradley.net/shotsinthedark/2010/07/07/jonathan-zittrains-conflict-of-interest/comment-page-1/#comment-24158)
Richard, I think you are one of the people that could do a really good job at this!
Delia
re: http://craigslistcriticism.blogspot.com/2010/07/aside-zittrain-harvards-berkman-center.html
EVEN MORE Delia: the worst situation that I can imagine is that it might have really been a *quid pro quo* (hefty funding for academic appointment) and Lessig got the 1st endowed professorship just to mask this exchange. Daniel Golden's "The Price of Admission; How America's Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges -- and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates" gives good background on how something like this might have worked out. D.
MORE: Seth's follow up post
Of course Zittrain is not naive - I'd say he's one of the most sophisticated and savvy people I've ever met. And someone does not become a professor at Harvard AND Oxford without being able to swim with sharks in some deep very waters indeed. His personal story would be interesting in a certain way, but Emily Brill didn't tell it. The article had much of a petty individual scandal tone against him, which I don't think was justified - and parts of that didn't even seem to be accurate. Again, the broader institutional issues, mentioned later on, are a different matter. Those are orders of magnitude more meaningful.
The fact that the Berkman Center gets plenty of publicity doesn't translate into support for a thorough analysis of it. Remember, journalism is basically gone - it's been replaced by attention-mongering, err, the link economy.
Posted by Seth Finkelstein to craigslist criticism at July 26, 2010 2:05 AM
I agree that she didn't do a very good job at it (and already said that) but I don't know about having necessarily been against him *personally*, rather than against his involvement with the Berkman center.
She *had* to say how she stumbled on the issues in the first place and that was as much of her own personal story (if you want to look at it that way) as it was Zittrain's. To me, her story sounds pretty mundane, I just don't see the scandal in it... : she applied for a job, was invited to sit in one of his classes and started wondering...
I wouldn't be surprised if she lost her chance to get the job once she started asking Zittrain questions about the inside workings of the Berkman center (things like where does the funding come from, which I believe she was entitled to know so she could make an informed decision on whether or not to accept the job if offered). And this is definitely relevant to the story that's worth telling.
Zittrain is by no means dumb but I'm not convinced that he would have become a Harvard Law Professor and had the academic career he ended-up having if he wouldn't have been a major player in setting up the Berkman center. One of the things to look into would be whether or not he had personal ties to the Berkmans and might have talked them into donating money to Harvard for this particular project. I suspect that was the case... I also suspect the Berkmans ended-up giving even *more* money to Harvard for other things and Harvard was grateful for Zitttrain's helping out with fund raising.
And yeah, the institutional level *is* the ultimate concern but it wouldn't have gotten to that point would Harvard had not allowed the Berkman center to be created in the first place. The way it *looks like* to me (and, of course, these are ALL just *my suspicions* -- it would have to be all checked) is that Harvard allowed itself to be corrupted and Zittrain was the one who ultimately made it happen.
Delia
P.S. I meant to say that *Emily Brill's story* got plenty of publicity (not just the Berkman center). So now plenty of people are aware of the issues. I believe there are still some decent journalists out there although their numbers do seem to be dwindling. D.
....
I agree, there's a story, but I'd say Jonathan Zittrain ended up personally scapegoated for what's broad institutional sins. The problem is that the overall story is a lot of research and work, plus one would have to deal with the inevitable push-back from the Berkman Center and allies. It's not an easy topic to write about.
Posted by Seth Finkelstein to craigslist criticism at July 25, 2010 1:31 PM
Seth,
The way I see it, Zittrain MUST have known what he was doing... Heck, he co-founded the monstrosity and served as it's 1st director from 1997 to 2000! Only *after* that period was he made Assistant Professor of Law at Harvard. So you gotta wonder if that was his ticket to getting an academic appointment at Harvard Law School.
The other major players in this (Nesson -- the other co-founder and Lessig -- who held the 1st endowed professorship) were already established academically prior to their involvement with the "academic based" advocacy center.
I do believe this is a story well worth telling and I'd be really surprised if Zittrain would show to have been merely in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I suspect that as time passed there were some significant changes made to counter the appearance (and the actual wrong doing) related to the center. And yeah... it wouldn't be easy and anybody even remotely associated with it would probably try to stop it/detract from it/etc.-- doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth doing! on the contrary...
And I do hope somebody will do a great job at it! (it's got plenty of publicity -- there must be *somebody* out there willing and able to do it)
Delia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)