Talk:Backpage

Cleaned up the section about Backpage and Tony Ortega
I believe the extension of the discussion on the so-called "conflation" of the issue of sex trafficking does not belong here, as it is no longer about Backpage and Tony Ortega. This is also based largely on one source: Washington Post, and downplays the very issue that Backpage was in trouble for. It's like saying, "well, it's not that bad." Regardless of how one media outlet views the issue of sex trafficking, it remains to be a real and important issue. This can belong in a discussion section in a page about sex trafficking in the US, while contextualizing it properly and not downplaying it, but it is too broad to be included here.Caudaequinas (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Response and Suggestion Re: Conflation
Hi, Caudaequinas, I used the Washington Post, but I also cited Reason, The New Republic, The Wake Forest Law Review, the podcast "You're Wrong About," and the FBI's Uniform Crime Report. Glenn Kessler at WaPo has done excellent work on this issue, but I can cite other sources saying exactly same things. I'm not downplaying the issue, but even the FBI's own stats show that this serious crime's stats are not on the same level, by any count, of other violent crimes, such as rape, murder and aggravated assault. As for Ortega, I'm willing to concede the point re: including him, though in reality, he was just one editor in a chain of papers, each with their own editors, the parent company of which was Village Voice Media. VVM was the parent co. of which Backpage was a part till 2012. Village Voice was just one paper in the mix. And Ortega had no control over Backpage, per se. Backpage was largely run by Carl Ferrer, its CEO and eventual owner.

Ortega did defend Backpage, as did many other VVM papers and their editors. So I'm not clear on why there's a need to focus on him. But like I say, I'll concede the point. I think the issue of the conflation of sex trafficking and prostitution is an important one in the context of Backpage, and continues to be so. Much of the give and take in the debate over Backpage centered on this point. I suggest that there be a separate subsection on the issue of conflation, following your section on Ortega, with much of the same text I originally had there. I'd even be willing to replace some of the WaPo citations with other sources saying the same thing.

These are my thoughts, submitted in the spirit of WP:AGF. Sincerely, Celine1776 (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Ads in cash
There was an advertisement for adult services in the wikipedia text itself from a guy named Charlie with a phone number for what I assume was some romance/sex service: "Looking for who to spend time with talk to dance eat or just have a good conversation +1 906 210 3380 book your favorite person today. Payment in cash ." Removed for advertising and soliciting (what I think is) prostitution on a wikipedia page. Watch this page in case it is botted. Charlotte6145 (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

hookup for sex
am brownskin 50.232.156.102 (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Reducing Focus of Craigslist Personals
For some reason, a significant portion of this article discusses the history and controversy around Craigslist personal services. Certainly Craigslist personals is worth mentioning (as it did compete with Backpage), but as a lot of the controversy surrounding it is already covered on the Craigslist Wikipedia page. It shouldn't be the focus of the article like it is right now Griffn29 (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)