Please point out to me the #s that you find damning.
Chapter #61 discusses this scheme. It's ridiculous to claim that any of the words used in the indictment strongly suggest child prostitution.
>array of terms that are suggestive of child prostitution (e.g., "lolita," fresh," "high school," "tight," "young")
> 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.”
Should Backpage have allowed anyone to take down their competitors ads by sending an email claiming that the competitor is underage?
Backpage didn't dispute the identity of the children.
Please read the documents.
What a wonderful strawman.
>that child contacts you to ask for that photograph to be taken down, you should probably do a bit more than say "no",
How do you tell that a specific person is in a photo? How do you tell that said person is a child?
>you should probably try and see if you are hosting images of child sexual abuse
How would you propose they do that?
>Backpage didn't dispute the identity of the children.
>Please read the documents.
Did you read the chapter following the your quote?
I asked because the claim you made earlier about the indictment makes more sense if you're talking about the press release (which I had not read because why would I).