1. They say "no im not exploited" because they are afraid
2. They say "no im not exploited" because they are not exploited
You gain no information from interviewing them. No vice unit has the resources to do a top secret clearance level check on them to confirm externally they are not exploited. To act like the two can simply be distinguished really is willfully ignoring the very real problem that you cannot verify the honesty of the person through any line of questioning. I suspect despite the foaming mouthed progressives claiming it's some puritanical hatred for women the reason for it still being illegal is because of this exact problem. There's no actual way to confirm this concept of "consent" in a legally rigid frame of reference because nearly every aspect of a sex workers job can be coerced.
1. You're probably being downvoted for saying people are "foam mouthed progressives" (and other such pejoratives) more than anything.
2. People often don't vote the way you would like. That is the nature of voting. You learn to live with it or you drive yourself crazy. (You'll probably be surprised how much your score goes up if you forego the inside insults though.)
3. There are plenty of people here who agree with you, but they aren't going to upvote, vouch your comments, or support your argument if you buck the norms of the community by being insulting. The community only survives by discouraging behavior like that.
For instance, I flagged a comment on this thread which was an insult to you personally, even though that person and I were aligned on this issue.
How's that?
Like, if McDonald's unknowingly sells a Big Mac to a hungry sex trafficker, have they facilitated sex trafficking? What if they do know he's a sex trafficker, but he's not currently dragging any women behind him with chains? Does he like have to be in flagrant possession of captive victims for it to be "facilitating"?
The legal definition, such as it is, is lame and rather loose. And besides, prosecutors routinely twist and stretch these definitions and judges rarely rebuke them for it, let alone shut it down (at least at the district level).
"Facilitating X" usually means that the defendant associated with the criminals, was vaguely aware that they committed crimes, and didn't refuse to do business with them (or in some cases, that they didn't become vigilante police themselves and investigate to be sure that the customers weren't criminals).
I'm reminded of a man prosecuted because he was selling little plastic vials with lids out of his dollar store. As he realized how popular they were, he ordered more... until at one point, he sought out a local manufacturer to make the things so he could reduce costs. The product was popular with crack dealers or something.
He was prosecuted on a "facilitation" charge of some sort. The idea of "facilitation" in regards to crime probably needs to be abandoned.
By legal definition they facilitated sex trafficking. Perhaps they could argue they are better than Average Joe Pimp, but Average Joe Pimp is also going to say he was kinder or more fair than Average Bob Pimp.
It seems like everyone accepts face value numbers of sex trafficking when trying to make a point about how widespread the issue is - but then except most forms of it from being "bad" or "actual sex trafficking".
I don't know what the best solution is. Legalizing is seems like it would solve most of the current issues, but ultimately I don't know how you get around issues of coercion with defenders (and backpage) would probably still consider "consensual". In places around the world where sex work is legal, its hard to point to many examples where there are no issues involving coercion.