Change at Backpage?? Phone Numbers Only??

[Electra225]

It looks like Backpage has made an interesting "update" and "change". Only phone numbers and photos are shown in the Men For Men listings. No descriptions of any kind. I very, very, very rarely hire from Backpage, but I do check it out on a daily basis just to see "what is out there". I guess that the Thought Police are at it again. I'm so glad that they are protecting us from us.

[+ azdr0710]

I......sorta......see what you're talking about for BP m4m (dating) listings in my area

 

several ads have only a phone number as the title of the listing now, which never seemed to happen before....but I'm also still seeing normal listings, too.....

 

am also seeing the ad-with-pictures-only phenomenon you mention, but, again, plenty of normal text in other ads

 

I wonder if this is some sort of listing choice/option advertisers now have at BP.....

Edited December 1, 2017 by azdr0710

[JayCeeKy]

I think they are probably phasing in a new "telephone numbers only" policy and eliminating a description of "services" that individuals offer - again, Rentboy repercussions continue to affect the escort industry. Just a guess.

[FTM Zachary Prince]

Yup its a phase-in. The ads that you see which still look normal weren't posted before the changes and have yet to expire / go up for renewal.

 

As more ads finish their current run, you will see less and less with text included. Its not even possible to renew an ad with text anymore.

 

In my opinion, what's really happening is that BP is pointing to social media to share the blame for advertising escorts every bit as much as it does. Many escorts use Twitter, Facebook, etc., and if the US government convicts BP for facilitating trafficking, it could use that as precendent to hold social media websites liable as well, forcing ALL of them to censor sex workers. I think BP is trying to force sex workers to use social media to share the details of our advertising since we can no longer write anything in BP ads. To make a point. Its a part of their legal strategy.

[Electra225]

Yup its a phase-in. The ads that you see which still look normal weren't posted before the changes and have yet to expire / go up for renewal.

 

As more ads finish their current run, you will see less and less with text included. Its not even possible to renew an ad with text anymore.

 

In my opinion, what's really happening is that BP is pointing to social media to share the blame for advertising escorts every bit as much as it does. Many escorts use Twitter, Facebook, etc., and if the US government convicts BP for facilitating trafficking, it could use that as precendent to hold social media websites liable as well, forcing ALL of them to censor sex workers. I think BP is trying to force sex workers to use social media to share the details of our advertising since we can no longer write anything in BP ads. To make a point. Its a part of their legal strategy.

 

I think that what you say is true. HOWEVER, I wonder what the ACLU and the Supreme Court would say about this, and similar, situations regarding the Bill of Rights? Freedom of expression is a fundamental part of our rule of law.

[gallahadesquire]

I think that what you say is true. HOWEVER, I wonder what the ACLU and the Supreme Court would say about this, and similar, situations regarding the Bill of Rights? Freedom of expression is a fundamental part of our rule of law.

 

Private company so 1st amendment doesn't apply.

[Electra225]

Private company so 1st amendment doesn't apply.

What if Backpage is considered to be an electronic "newspaper" or publication? Plus, wouldn't the "editorial" content of the author (the individual who posted the item to Backpage) be protected by the 1st Amendment as freedom of speech--especially as long as the "verbage" in and of itself does not describe a criminal act, but, for instance, only describes an individual's "attributes", location, and, maybe, "general interests" and "hobbies"? There was a criminal case in Texas a year or so ago where an individual was criminally charged with making an "inappropriate" post on Facebook. Since the post did not contain a description of a criminal act (past, present, or future), the defense attorney claimed 1st Amendment privilege and the prosecution dropped the charges with the judge's urging. This was in state district court (not federal) and, since there was no trial or other further proceedings, the matter did not receive "black law" coverage--although I think it made the papers.

[FTM Zachary Prince]

I guess the issue is whether Backpage.com can be held liable for what users choose to post on their site. Backpage' lawyers say no they can't. The US government says yes they can and are prosecuting them for it, as well as running a smear campaign to ensure public morality opinions remain largely against Backpage. Legal precedent support's Backpage's claim, but with the current political climate towards sex work & the overblown hysteria around the 'human trafficking epidemic', it's really hard to say how the courts will go.

 

I think what Backpage is doing is aligning themselves with other websites that haven't been subject to the same kind of political smearing. BP wants to argue that it's not any more liable for the content its users publish than Twitter or Facebook or Instagram. So I think they're making their case physically more clear by eliminating any opportunity for users to post anything incriminating and requiring all the potentially-incriminating details to be located on third-party websites (social media giants) that are less enticing for the courts to hold liable for the content they publish.

 

On Twitter anyone can say openly that they sell sex in change for money, and Twitter won't censor or ban them. Twitter allows that freedom of speech because according to the courts, it's not liable for whatever its users choose to publish. If the courts decide that BP is liable for what its users published then it sets up legal precedent for Twitter to be held liable as well. I think BP is just kind of making that consequence more transparent by forcing the connection between its users and social media giants. Solidifying their case.

[maninsoma]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think where the comparison between Backpage and social media sites breaks down is that Backpage charges money for making posts whereas someone can create accounts on social media platforms and then post for free.

 

I checked out BP yesterday and noticed not only the trend to simple phone numbers and photos, but there are already some interesting attempts to game the system going on. One is that some guys post a photo of text that describes what they are offering (smart). Another is that people are linking social media accounts that clearly aren't even theirs (very odd).

[+ glutes]

Another is that people are linking social media accounts that clearly aren't even theirs (very odd).

 

And their social media links lead to nothing.

[maninsoma]

And their social media links lead to nothing.

 

I guess it's similar to the new requirement of masseurfinder for those who want to review. Now we'll just have lots of people creating basic social media profiles so they can post reviews on masseurfinder or post an ad on Backpage.

[tanman4u]

Kinda resurrecting an older thread as I just checked out BP in advance of a stateside trip coming up and surprised at the pic/phone# only thing going on. It definitely makes it tough to know who's selling themselves. I'm guessing there's a lot of guys that aren't in it for the biz getting hit up on since they can't even use "generous" in their post unless it's in a pic of txt.