Craigslist disables "adult services," unclear if temporary measure.
The New York Times is reporting that Craig Newmark and Craigslist.com have disabled the Adult Services section of the website.
This section of the website was rife with personal advertisements for prostitution and according to law enforcement was a exploitative portal for child prostitution and human trafficking. Due to the nature of these ads, last month attorneys general from 17 states took action and sent a letter to Craigslist asking them to take down the section. They have replaced the former link with a giant black "censored" label.
Personally, I think this is a media savvy play from Craigslist that will let it gauge the public's reaction to this. Will people cry foul for censorship? Or will people applaud the company for taking action at it's own expense to combat human trafficking and exploitation of minors?
Craigslist has been under fire from politicians, the media, and bloggers who have been leveraging social networking to spread the word about the problem.
This will cost Craig lost revenue. I mentioned in a previous post that Craiglist generated as much as 1/3 of their annual revenue from the adult services postings, which had cost $10 for a new post and $5 to re-list an existing post.
Read more about this from today's New York Times article, CNN's reaction to it, or Time Magazine's take.
Labels:
craigslist,
human trafficking,
justice,
prostitution
3 comments:
I know we've talked about this many times, but it does give me hope that
A. there was the amount of pressure placed upon Craigslist as there was by so many states and attorney generals and
B. They responded by taking content down rather than making additional excuses for it to remain up on their website.
I feel that even though many nominal users of Craigslist will not even notice that this feature was taken down BUT it will create very polarized reactions among those who are aware of this new measure. Those who are aware of the true nature and intention of the Adult Services section will either be outraged or overjoyed at the realization that this has been removed or "censored" as Craigslist put it. There will not be much middle ground. It will be interesting to see how Craigslist responds and what side the majority of Craigslist users take. My prayer is that the voice of justice will ring loud and clear over that of lustful desire.
Thanks for your post, Chris. And I agree with Helena.
I’m glad to see Craigslist responding to public opinion and I think it’s a good start. But it doesn’t mean it has stopped. Craigslist has still left it wide open for criminals to sneak ads into the “personals” section of the site. And Craigslist’s Europe sites do still have the erotic/adult link.
My hope is for this Craigslist controversy not to be forgotten due to a “censored” label. Human trafficking and sexual exploitation of all ages continues to happen on the Internet. Yes, particular laws for the Internet would be helpful, but I suppose criminals typically have a way of getting around regulations.
The big question is: How does the buying and selling of people via the Internet stop? Increased awareness is a good starting point. And we need to continue to raise our voices and get others on board with stopping it. The quick fix of “censoring” isn’t good enough in my opinion… we need to go beyond… looking at root causes as a society, educating, etc…
Hmm. The fact that they've taken it down could be a good sign. On the other hand, the fact that they're not being vocal about their reasons why leaves me with an unsettled feeling. If they're not willing to take a firm stance against it and make a definitive statement against the traffickers that have abused their services, then how will we really know that they are with us on our stance against human & sex trafficking? How tough will they be on traffickers who use the other parts of their site as Julie mentioned?
It's encouraging when companies make changes. One by one, voice by voice, we can change the world. But when a company isn't willing to speak out about why they made the choice as Craigslist has done, then it leaves me wondering: was it of their own accord? Or are they doing it to deflect attention and blame? There's a big difference.
I agree with Julie - it's a step in the right direction, but it's not enough. Bigger questions need to be addressed.
Keep up the good work, my abolitionist friend. Your voice matters. ;)
Post a Comment
Comments are cool... You should totally leave one.