This just in:
Bronx Teacher Reassigned After Sex Article
A teacher at a Bronx elementary school has been reassigned after writing on a Web site about her past as a sex worker. In a short online article in The Huffington Post on Sept. 7, the teacher, Melissa Petro, criticized Craigslist for shutting down its “adult services” section, which carried sex-related advertising.
Ms. Petro wrote that from October 2006 to January 2007, she “accepted money in exchange for sexual services I provided to men I met online.”
Petro goes on to write that she found the work hard and degrading and ended up quitting.
As we know, it is impossible to get rid of teachers in the New York City school system. They could come to school drunk and have affairs with the students and still wind up in the "rubber room," i.e. merely being "reassigned" or sent to some waiting area for months, collecting pay.
So this teacher isn't going anywhere. And that means Craig Newmark can follow Mark Zuckerberg's example and give a $100 million to the Bronx schools, on the condition that this teacher be let back. Wouldn't that be nifty?!
Danah Boyd has posted the most outrageous support of Craigslist, after it was finally pressured into closing its adult services sections by constant inquiries by the states attorney generals. Here this beloved tech and social media guru twists herself into a pretzel to run to her tribe's aid, and prostitutes herself into stumping for porn and prostitution -- although she has always styled herself as someone out to protect children and teenagers and claims she has a feminist perspective that condemns prostitution as exploitation.
Her argumentation is completely phony, and amounts to saying that by having all the prostitution in one controlled monitorable place, it will be easy to weed out the bad actors and also provide help more efficiently and swiftly to victims. That the entire system of Craigslist accelerates and facilitates victims seems to escape her. In fact, the real story of Craigslist if you look at it is that the personals are also the porn, and are also a cover for the prostitution in even worse form.
Meanwhile, both she and her dutiful fanboyz claim that if people don't have online ads and are driven to dark allies and seedy bars, they will face greater harm. But...they never explain how the people who use the online service to *meet* in a sleazy bar are going to do when they come to harm -- same difference.
Of course Craig Newmark himself has absolutely no scruples about this, and having made his first millions off the porn ads and the luring of online users to it can afford to posture and play the victim now and put CENSORED in the place where the ads used to be.
I can't even find my answer in the huge bundle of replies on this article that make Huffpo even more ridiculous to try to read than the New York Times, which at least tries to sort them into readers' highlights and editors' picks. Huffo has some game-like system that makes some people get colours to stand out, but there isn't voting to make answers rise to the top.
So here's my reply:
If what you say about congregating ads in one place was true, it could only be tested if Craig didn't take money for the ads. Then we might test his altruism and the premise. There's nothing magical about online as any greater form of publicity or help than anything else. Driving the ads offline means there are less of them, and less afforandance of abuse. Of course Craigslist doesn't cause murders of prostitutes; johns do. But Craigslist makes it more speedy and efficient, and that's wrong. Your notion that a prostitute should replace getting beat up by a john occasionally to avoid "oppression" by not having online ads is outrageous, truly. Listen to yourself! Advocating that a woman take a beating so that technocommunist empires like Craig's can go on thriving.
Danah, there you goes again, hustling for social media devs as part of the whole Silicon Valley IT cult. Frankly, you're disgraceful. Have you no sense of solidarity with human dignity? This isn't about sex workers' rights, if that's your point (you stop shy of taking that extremist labor position), but about Craigslist exploiting people's need for anonymous and easy sex to make a buck, and what a pernicious thing that is in society, undermining morals. Craigslist doesn't just make a nominal fee; he charges $10 for the adult services ads and made revenue of $45 million a year, according to the New York Times.
Your fellow Berkmanite Craig Newmark got amazingly wealthy from these ads primarily when they were even less regulated, and still does. His "censored" gambit is a petulant and entitlement-happy whine in the face of public opinion. The law may be on his side, but the attorneys general have taken this to the media and public precisely because they are looking for the morality that creates the substrate of the rule of law. This is about power. It's about the exploitative attitude that all your big social media dev pals take toward us users -- using us. Whether it's ebay or Facebook or Craigslist, the object is always to soak the tacky middle class that needs online more than the rich, eh? And then turn around and use those resources drained from increasingly poor people to fund various boutique leftist causes. Shame.