It reminds me of a lecture I recently heard in which the speaker was talking about the shanty towns that formed on the outskirts of most big cities during the Industrial Revolution as poor farmers began to migrate from the countryside to factory towns in search of work. This growing urban squalor inspired a number of social reformers — especially Marx and Engels — to condemn capitalism for producing such poverty. But the speaker pointed out that it wasn’t capitalism that produced this poverty: The poverty already existed. Capitalism just moved the poverty from the rural countryside, where it was invisible to most city dwellers, into the urban slums, where it became painfully visible to everyone. As long as the poor lived on farms, many miles from the cities, the problem of poverty could be ignored. But when that poverty moved in practically next door to decent, middle class city folk, it suddenly become a problem that required an urgent solution — and, for many, a revolutionary solution.

Problem solved!

It’s a classic ‘see no evil’ approach to law enforcement and ethics. Law enforcement doesn’t want to set up stings or try to enforce the law, so they’ve made it harder for themselves and others to see the evidence of prostitution. Or it’s simply a step by censorship nuts to further restrict free flow of information. Either way, it’s stupid and dangerous.

“The Internet had made it a lot easier for them to find criminals, but that didn’t make their jobs any easier because they were now aware of how many more victims they were unable to help.”

On another topic: Some of my own work has brought me into contact with Dr. boyd’s research, consequently I have a great deal of respect for her work. It’s strange to see her writing for HufPo, who tend to be short on the details and long on emotional appeal. Hopefully she’ll be good for them.

Duh.

Seriously, I spent a month playing with Dana and JHeers social graph code, from above. Have to give respect to anyone who’s opinion is derived from encoding *real* social interaction.

Such rigor deserves more lot attention than a snark.

Seriously, I spent a month playing with Dana and JHeers social graph code, from above. Have to give respect to anyone who’s opinion is derived from encoding *real* social interaction.

Such rigor deserves a lot more attention than a snark.

Actual complains from sex-trade workers about assault or murder and missing persons reports about them are routinely ignored. This always comes out in the inquests that follow the accidental capture of a serial killer specialising in hookers.

http://sexualintelligence.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/craigslist-sex-trafficking-the-next-moral-panic/

He goes directly for the actual issues (hysteria and censorship), rather than adding more hysteria to the mix.

That’s some pretty wishful thinking honey. I’ve heard the “we wouldn’t abuse our customers because we have an interest in protecting them” line before.

How can anyone read past that one tragic phrase?

But then, it’s huff-po; what else can you expect?