In my view, a person making a claim—especially one stating there is “evidence” of this— that a group of people have improper motives in contradiction to the default-held position that their motives are generally good bears the burden of persuasion.

It is one thing to claim that we are passing laws in good faith that end up not working as well as we hoped. It’s quite another make unsubstantiated claims that people are acting in bad faith.

Correction: the politicians are accused of acting Amorally. Of taking action regardless of the consequences, of just not caring about the predicted real life effects, or the observed real life effects of legislation. That they're in it purely for their own interests, which have nothing to do with the victims. That they couldn't care less if the legislation helps anyone, just what it will do for them.

They're not accused of acting Immorally, which would be taking action with mal intent. They're not trying to increase child prostitution. They're not trying to enable it. They're not looking to abuse children themselves.

They're accused of being psychopaths, not criminals.

I don't understand how the default position can be anything but that politicians indeed act amorally. There is a very long history of politicians enacting laws specifically to hide prostitution, not to stop it. There is an equally long history of people asking them to do so. Society definitely wants prostitution. Society also wants very vulnerable prostitutes, well hidden from view.

TechDirt is a SELF-PROCLAIMED rumor mill. It is not a reputable source for anything and the owners make no qualms about it.

> TechDirt is a SELF-PROCLAIMED rumor mill.

I think you may be confused. The articles' consistent and well done sourcing is a solid opposite of rumor-mill behavior.

> It is not a reputable source for anything and the owners make no qualms about it.

Obviously not true as even a casual read will attest. As evidence I offer the site, in partial or it's entirety.

> As evidence I offer the site, in partial or it's entirety.

TechDirt has been on a backslide in readership for years, primarily from it's crappy "we just post what we hear" nonsense. What you see now is a rebranding (eg* "free speech") which has served them better than the previous snicker journalism that they are known for. The fact that they have seemingly well-sourced articles is incidental to the past, which you seem wholly ignorant enough to assume was a quality source.

*It does seem to be working as other sites are increasingly linking to it.

This is the source: https://www.wrtv.com/longform/running-blind-impd-arrests-fir...

From this article:

> “We assume it’s a great thing that Backpage closed down,” Stefanie Jeffers said. “And it is, because it’s horrible that Backpage existed and so much trafficking occurred through the users of Backpage. But I do think that it comes with its dangers too.”

> Jeffers, the founder of the nonprofit Grit Into Grace, works with women who are engaged in street prostitution in Indianapolis to help them get out of the life. She says Backpage’s closure came as a shock to the women she talked to.

I don't get why you're hung up on whether TechDirt is reputable or not, just read the actual article?

Compulsive Techdirt hatred is a weird thing. Without fail, I see it 'evidenced' with w/ unsubstantiated innuendos - pretty much what the haters say TD does.

I suspect if the news article was linked to directly, we wouldn’t be having this specific discussion. But even the source article provides no support for the argument that Congress acted with malice towards the innocent.