Did you read the indictment or the press release?

He's asking you for the #s, surely he's referring to the indictment with numbered chapters.

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")

We know Backpage did nothing about some underage ads because the girls who'd been trafficked tried to get those ads taken down and Backpage declined.

> 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.”

Backpage allowed users to delete ads they posted.

Should Backpage have allowed anyone to take down their competitors ads by sending an email claiming that the competitor is underage?

If you have a photograph of a child being raped, and that child contacts you to ask for that photograph to be taken down, you should probably do a bit more than say "no", you should probably try and see if you are hosting images of child sexual abuse and see if you can take down those images.

Backpage didn't dispute the identity of the children.

Please read the documents.

>If you have a photograph of a child being raped

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?

It's not a straw man. That happened.

I've quoted directly from it.

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).

I read all of your posts, and I couldn't find any quote. Why don't you give us the specific # in the indictment?

The specific what in the indictment? I think you're confused. I asked if 'stickfigure was working from the indictment or the press release (turns out: press release). He responded with a link to the press release and a request for which "#s I find damning". I don't even know what that question means.

Is one more relevant than the other?

Obviously yes.