People were advertising on Backpage. Backpage wanted that money, and wanted them to continue advertising, and so Backpage gave advice to these gangs about how to advertise in a manner that reduced law enforcement attention. By giving advice about editing the ads and by not keeping the original ads, Backpage made it harder for law enforcement to take action. Backpage (and look, osme HN users too) suggest it's better to have the ads on Backpage where Backpage can report to law enforcement. But that didn't happen, backpage had a policy of not reporting these ads and complaining about staff who did report them.

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/backpagecoms-knowing-f...

Here's the contents page:

---begin---

FINDINGS

I.

Backpage Has Knowingly Concealed Evidence of Criminality By Systematically Editing Its “Adult” Ads.

Backpage Began Editing “Adult” Ads On An Ad Hoc Basis.

Backpage Automatically Deleted Incriminating Words From Sex Ads Prior to Publication.

Backpage Moderators Manually Deleted Incriminating Language That Company Filters Missed.

Backpage Coached Its Users On How To Post “Clean” Ads for Illegal Transactions.

II.

Backpage Knows That It Facilitates Prostitution and Child Sex Trafficking

Backpage Knows Its Site Facilitates Prostitution

Backpage Knows Its Site Facilitates Child Sex Trafficking

---end---

This wasn't a couple of ads.

> By Backpage’s own internal estimate, by late-2010, the company was editing “70 to 80% of ads” in the adult section either manually or automatically.

Backpage didn't cooperate with law enforcement.

> Backpage also knows that advertisers use its site extensively for child sex trafficking, but the company has often refused to act swiftly in response to complaints about particular underage users—preferring in some cases to interpret these complaints as the tactics of a competing escort. Backpage may also have tried to manipulate the number of child-exploitation reports it forwards to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Law enforcement couldn't see the original unedited ads.

> This practice raises questions about Backpage’s purported cooperation with law enforcement. Although Backpage often responds to grand jury subpoenas and other law enforcement requests for documents about criminal activity, including by providing copies of advertisements in the adult section, it may well have provided only the edited version of certain ads—without providing the original user-submitted content or disclosing that an ad may have been altered. Even if the original text of the advertisement was not retained, documents indicate that Backpage did keep records tracking each time a Backpage moderator viewed and/or edited an ad. There is no indication, however, that Backpage has included such information in subpoena responses.

They had a policy to not report ads to law enforcement.

> The record also contains substantial evidence that, as a matter of policy, Backpage often chose to err against reporting potential child exploitation. As the Subcommittee reported in connection with its November 2015 hearing, in June 2012 Backpage instructed its outsourced third-party moderators only to delete suspected child-sex advertisements “IF YOU REALLY VERY SURE THE PERSON IS UNDERAGE.” In a similar email, a Backpage supervisor instructed internal moderation staff: “Young ads do not get deleted unless they are clearly a child.”

> In a similar exchange dated July 11, 2013, Vaught took issue with a moderator’s decision to report an ad to NCMEC due to “inappropriate content” and the moderator’s belief that the person in the ad “look[ed] young.” Vaught explained that she “probably wouldn’t have reported this one.” 268 The moderator responded that the girl or woman in the ad “looked drugged and has bruises”— obvious indications of trafficking—which led her to send the report. Vaught replied that the person in the ad did not look under 18 years old, adding that “[t]hese are the kind of reports the cops question us about. I find them all the time, it’s just usually you who sends them [(to NCMEC)].” Basing reporting on the appearance of the individual advertised, alone, may result in underreporting, however; as NCMEC has noted, “it is virtually impossible to determine how old the young women in these ads are without an in-depth criminal investigation. The pimps try to make the 15 year olds look 23. And the distinction of whether the person in the ad is 17 or 18 is pretty arbitrary.”

But Backpage also refused to take down images when the person in the image asked for it to be taken down.

> And in February 2010, a detective emailed Backpage to alert the company that a 17-year-old girl who tried to get Backpage to take down an advertisement of herself had been rebuffed: According to the detective, the girl “tried asking for [the ads] to be removed but was told they couldnt [sic] be until enough people reported her as potentially underage.”

I mean, people on HN are outraged about these laws, but they're a direct result of the terrible human beings at Backpage who chose to profit out of the kidnapping and raping of children. The least HN can do is read the fucking documents.