Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet United States Government Politics

Craigslist Agrees With State AGs To Curb "Erotic Services" Ads 402

Posted by timothy
from the right-to-pursue-happiness dept.
The New York Times reports that Craigslist has reached an agreement with 40 state attorneys general to tame its notoriously unruly "erotic services" listings. Clever diplomacy: according to the article, Craigslist "said that it will charge erotic services vendors a small fee for each ad — about $10, Mr. Buckmaster said — and require that they use a credit card for the payment. It will donate the money to charities that combat child exploitation and human trafficking. This, theoretically, will let the company confirm not just a phone number but also an identity." I hope they work on cleaning the weird spammers from the ordinary personal ads, too.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Craigslist Agrees With State AGs To Curb "Erotic Services" Ads

Comments Filter:
  • by hxnwix (652290) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @07:24PM (#25668529) Journal

    Amen. The spammers from the ordinary personal adds are really dirty and urgently require cleaning of any kind. You'd think these guys are allergic to showers...

  • by opencity (582224) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @07:25PM (#25668535) Homepage

    Putting hookers back on the streets is good why?
    This will just push the pros into the personals, though if Craigslist starts charging for personals as well they'll make a lot more money.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06, 2008 @07:42PM (#25668825)

      That's exactly why Craigslist created the ERS section--because they realized they couldn't eradicate prostitution ads from the site, so the next-best solution was to corral it into a section where it wouldn't bother anybody who wasn't interested. And that worked.

      So...what does this accomplish? The pro's will move back into the personals, or into "Casual Encounters" or "Adult Gigs." They won't post in ERS, since their whole strategy is to slam ERS with as many ads as possible to keep theirs on the front page, and they're sure as hell not going to pay $10 per ad. Which raises the question: Who *will* post in ERS, if not prostitutes? Isn't this creating a fiction similar to the "non-prostitute escorts"?

      These ads have been in newspaper classifieds since time immemorial, and they've been on Craigslist since its inception. This strategy won't drive them off. It just upsets the compromise that, frankly, had been working (eve for law enforcement, who could easily surf ERS to set up a quick sting on a slow week).

      PS--Will this new "fee" will apply in areas where prostitution is legal (e.g., Rhode Island, parts of Nevada, maybe San Francisco)?

      • by zappepcs (820751) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @08:01PM (#25669055) Journal

        What is wrong with the whole damned thing is this: prostitution is illegal, even though there are no victims for this crime, and I don't care what you think about how there is illegal activity all through the sex industry, it would not be nearly as prevalent if it were a legal business for which folk could lose their license if they were doing bad things.

        Because it remains illegal, this sort of problem will plague online sites and newspapers etc. You can't get rid of it, can't keep it in a special section, can't clean it up. All those problems would be easy to deal with if it was licensed and legal.

        This is just one of the places that government could tax and regulate to ensure a better public health, a safer society, and aid in decreasing or eliminating personal income tax.

        Regulating morality does NOT work. Legislating a prohibition never has worked, especially on things that are victimless crimes.

        • by tepples (727027)

          What is wrong with the whole damned thing is this: prostitution is illegal, even though there are no victims for this crime, and I don't care what you think about how there is illegal activity all through the sex industry, it would not be nearly as prevalent if it were a legal business for which folk could lose their license if they were doing bad things.

          Likewise: What is wrong with the whole damned thing is this: commercial infringement of copyright in orphaned works is illegal, even though there are no victims for this crime, and I don't care what you think about how there is illegal activity all through the publishing industry, it would not be nearly as prevalent if it were a legal business for which folk could lose their license if they were doing bad things.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          While I generally agree it won't go away, it also won't go away even if it were legal. There would still be a black market of people working "off the grid" as it were. I'm willing to bet that criminal market would be exactly as big as it is today.

          In countries were it's legal it's still one of the most seedy underground criminal infested markets. Just like gambling. People trading other people as basically slaves and things of that nature. The legality makes no difference.

          While I don't agree with regula

          • I'm willing to bet that criminal market would be exactly as big as it is today.

            So, even though prostitutes wouldn't have to spend precious time and resources looking over their shoulder, getting arrested, going to court, going to prison, going to halfway houses, being able to file charges on their pimp should they still bother to have one, NOTHING will change? I think you need to show your work there.

            We do have a duty to reduce activity that harms others

            It would also be nice if we didn't enact laws that do exactly the thing they're "supposed" to be protecting. Awww, who am I kidding, let's just go ban something else!
        • by frosty_tsm (933163) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @08:43PM (#25669571)

          [quote]and aid in decreasing or eliminating personal income tax.[/quote]

          I've heard the argument of taxing vices to eliminate taxes for the rest of us. The reality is that if you attempt to tax them enough to lift the tax burden from everyone else, a combination of 1) people won't do it as much and the revenue won't be there or 2) people will do it illegally or seek loopholes to avoid the steep taxes.

          It would be a valid form of revenue, but not capable of supporting the country.

          • by glwtta (532858) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @09:13PM (#25669913) Homepage
            I've heard the argument of taxing vices to eliminate taxes for the rest of us.

            Also, I'm not all that confident that if they started taxing "vice" I would end up in the "rest of us" category.
            • by zappepcs (820751) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @11:04PM (#25670939) Journal

              An excellent point! If it were legal and safe? Uh, why wouldn't people go to prostitutes? I did say 'aid' in decreasing or eliminating...... not wipe it out in one swift move.

              The other argument fails. Studies (no links to hand) have shown that legalization of victimless crimes (typically drugs) did not lead to higher drug use, or back alley dealing of drugs in spite of legal paths. Once there is a legal market, it sorts itself out. As for frosty saying people won't do it as much... ahem! When did sex ever get unpopular? In the history of the fucking world? Jebus, it's still popular in the Vatican FFS.

              frosty simply offers arguments that the government as always offered. They have not fixed the problem, or made life any better for either the prostitutes or the johns. You'd think the legislators in Washington DC would be all for this? They seem to be regular customers. Well, some just hang out in bathrooms.

              Even in dire times of financial crisis alcohol, sex, drugs, and gambling are top earners for those that deal in those businesses. Prohibition does NOT work, and only strengthens the bottom feeders who take advantage of people. And yes, sometimes those bottom feeders are the government!

        • "No victims" (Score:4, Insightful)

          by PCM2 (4486) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @08:48PM (#25669625) Homepage

          What is wrong with the whole damned thing is this: prostitution is illegal, even though there are no victims for this crime

          Let's get over this idea that there are "no victims" in the crime of prostitution. The victims are the prostitutes. Yes, some people do willingly trade sex for money. A great, great many do not. Prostitutes are preyed upon daily by pimps, johns, drug dealers, human traffickers, and sadists. If we decriminalized the business of prostitution, some of this would disappear but some of it would not. Amsterdam, which has legalized prostitution, has recently recognized the influence of international organized crime on its red light district.

          Deregulating immorality does NOT work.

          • Re:"No victims" (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Fulcrum of Evil (560260) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @09:04PM (#25669827)
            pop quiz: does making it illegal make prostitution more or less susceptible to criminal influence?
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by PCM2 (4486)

              pop quiz: does making it illegal make prostitution more or less susceptible to criminal influence?

              Trick question. If you stop calling the people participating in the act "criminals," then the criminal influence disappears. The behavior does not, however. The question is whether it is healthy for society to condone the behaviors associated with the prostitution industry.

              Living in San Francisco, I have seen firsthand what happens when you condone prostitution. Our former district attorney, Terrence Hallinan, basically made it known that prostitution offenses would not get prosecuted in the City of San Fr

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Ed Avis (5917)

                Your example is not of a case where prostitution was legalized, but of a case where it remained illegal but the police abdicated their responsibility to enforce the law. That is quite different.

                If it were legal, prostitutes wouldn't need to be on the streets at all. They could set up premises, pay taxes, and be entitled to police protection just the same as any legitimate business. They wouldn't need pimps or to hide when a police car drove by.

                Again, who is regulating these massage parlours? An ordinary

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by glwtta (532858)
            If we decriminalized the business of prostitution, some of this would disappear but some of it would not.

            So, decriminalization would lead to improvements, but it's not perfect, so the status quo is better? Doesn't make much sense.

            That said, I'm no expert here, since everything I know about prostitution I learned by watching that show where Billy Piper takes her kit off a lot. On mute.
          • Re:"No victims" (Score:5, Insightful)

            by JesseMcDonald (536341) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @11:49PM (#25671343) Homepage

            there are no victims for this crime

            Let's get over this idea that there are "no victims" in the crime of prostitution.

            (Emphasis mine.)

            What you say is true, but what the GP says is also true. The act of prostitution itself harms no one but the one choosing to commit it, and thus fits the definition of a victimless crime perfectly. The prostitute may in fact be a victim of other crimes, and there may exist victims of separate crimes associated with (but not caused by) prostitution, but it is nonetheless a crime for which there are no victims.

        • by MarcQuadra (129430) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @09:44PM (#25670227)

          I agree with your point of view. I live in a state where prostitution is -totally legal-, provided it's not promoted or enforced by management, and done completely indoors.

          I live up the street from a place you can get a $60 handjob and $120 sex, and it's legal.

          Most residents don't even know that this is the case here, since it's all very quiet and private, but it's a huge industry. We do -not- have a problem with 'streetwalkers' here, though, which is nice.

          So long and short, we have legal prostitution, the world hasn't ended, and we have no outdoor streetwalkers or burgeoning women's prisons because of it. Most people don't know about it, and those who find out that it's legal don't usually go off on a rant about having to end it, since things are fine the way they are.

          By the way, the state is Rhode Island, and this stuff happens at virtually every 'spa' and almost every strip club here. Come visit!

        • by ZxCv (6138) on Friday November 07, 2008 @01:29AM (#25672133) Homepage

          "Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by sukotto (122876)

          Why is it illegal to charge for an activity that's legal to give away for free?
          -- George Carlin (paraphrased)

  • Sum it up (Score:5, Funny)

    by Itninja (937614) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @07:26PM (#25668553) Homepage
    The last line in the article is awesome: "There are very few prostitutes who want to be called by Craigslist and asked to give additional identifying information."

    This immediately made me think 'so you are saying that some prostitutes want Craigslist to call them?'. Now that's kinky.
  • by auLucifer (1371577) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @07:29PM (#25668609)
    I'm sure there's a joke right there ...
  • ... that they're making money off "immoral earnings"? I'd have thought this would open up a whole legal minefield for them...

    • by JesseL (107722)

      No, it means that a consequence of their efforts to reduce immoral solicitations on their service is some money being collected, none of which becomes 'earnings' because it's all donated to non-profits.

  • Useless (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sfbiker (1118091) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @07:33PM (#25668691)

    What a brilliant idea! Those stupid prostitutes will *never* think about putting their ads in the Craigslist sections that don't require ID!

    It's not like they aren't already posting in the non-erotic services sections, the w4m section often has ads with "women" looking for a "generous" guy who will help out a girl who will "do anything". Along with more explict ads from women advertising their services. They eventually get flagged off but get reposted quickly.

    Just make prostitution legal and regulate it -- charge enough taxes and the Governator won't need to push for a California sales tax increase.

    • by mkiwi (585287)
      How are you going to get prostitutes to pay taxes? They deal in cash and there's no paper trail. Should the ladies of the night of the world start giving receipts for their services?

      Hooker: "Ok that's $21.20 with tax. You don't happen to have exact change do you? Great, let me get your receipt."

      • Re:Useless (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Babbster (107076) <aaronbabb AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday November 06, 2008 @08:06PM (#25669133) Homepage
        Why wouldn't they? The "true" professionals would likely be more than happy to pay taxes if they could eliminate the chance to get arrested for conducting their day-to-day business. As it is, I'm also sure that many of them already pay income taxes to some degree to avoid legal hassles if they're investigated by the IRS, declaring themselves to be an "escort" or some such.

        Keeping prostitution illegal is misguided and based on a puritanical ideal that has never, and will never, be achieved.
        • Re:Useless (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ProzacPatient (915544) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @11:55PM (#25671391)

          Keeping prostitution illegal is misguided and based on a puritanical ideal that has never, and will never, be achieved.

          I'm against pre-marital sex, and that prostitution is a waste of money, but I also realize that I live in a free country and my personal standard is not everybody's standards and I have no right to force that upon them.
          With that in mind I believe I can say that I agree with you because legalizing prostitution means that it can be properly and formally regulated to prevent the spread of STDs and other potential strings that may come attached (although I suppose that if you go looking for sex from strangers then you'd be willing to take that risk).
          A good example might be the prohibition of alcohol during the 1920's and all the promises that overly self-righteous people said that would come with it. So much for those promises because the prohibition brought with it an expansion of organized crime and poisonous moonshine liqueur. The prohibition created more violence and crime then it was ever promised to save.

      • by flink (18449)

        How are you going to get prostitutes to pay taxes? They deal in cash and there's no paper trail. Should the ladies of the night of the world start giving receipts for their services?

        So do car services, couriers, waiters, bartenders, various street vendors, and many small contractors. They pay taxes (if they pay taxes) like any self-employed person: they file a 1099 or their employer pays them a nominal salary that they largely withhold to pay taxes on tips.

      • It works in Australia, prostitution is legal in registered brothels, they pay taxes and fees. Its still illegal to pick up a customer off the street though.

      • Re:Useless (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mooingyak (720677) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @08:16PM (#25669251)

        I have heard that many prostitutes file income tax returns.

        Reason being that prostitution is usually a misdemeanor offense, while tax evasion is a felony.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by guyminuslife (1349809)

        I don't have first-hand knowledge, but I'm pretty sure that the smarter prostitutes pay income tax anyway, and list their occupation as something legal. You pretty much need a bank account, especially if you're in a job that dangerous. That's a paper trail; vice cops are one thing, but the IRS is a beast nobody wants to tangle with.

        Of course, it's easy to tax brothels. I believe that one of the reasons why the Nevada cathouses have never been shut down is the fact that so much of the municipal government's

  • Last iheard sex between 2 consenting adults was legal in this country, and so was talking about it.

    This sounds like yet another nannystate issue where the government is sticking their nose where it does not belong.

    • Re:Censorship (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NiceGeek (126629) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @07:44PM (#25668849)

      Even more mind-boggling is that making porn movies is legal. So it's only illegal if one of the people gets paid and the other doesn't.

      • Re:Censorship (Score:4, Interesting)

        by sexconker (1179573) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @07:56PM (#25668995)

        I'll pay $100 if you:

        Contract a performer that I represent for a $50 fee.
        Star in an art performance with the performer (who may or may not be me), in which you give him a blow job.

        Drum up some paperwork at legalzoom.com and it's air tight.

      • Re:Censorship (Score:4, Interesting)

        by nurb432 (527695) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @08:01PM (#25669049) Homepage Journal

        *porn* is not protected by the first amendment. *adult films* are.

        Not that i agree, but thats how the supreme court ruled long ago. Its why they have to have a plot ( however thin ) and a dialog ( however small )

        • by Babbster (107076)
          Wow. Then I've watched a lot of illegal porn then. Movies with no dialog and no plot are quite common.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by glwtta (532858)
      Last iheard sex between 2 consenting adults was legal in this country, and so was talking about it.

      I'm not sure where you are, but here in the US that's not always as certain as we'd like it to be.
  • If the credit card is stolen.....
    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      If the credit card is stolen.....

      Why steal a credit card when you can use prepaid?
      Same deal with the phone number: a prepaid cell that goes straight to voicemail.

      At best, this will trip up the stupid.

      • If the credit card is stolen.....

        Why steal a credit card when you can use prepaid? Same deal with the phone number: a prepaid cell that goes straight to voicemail.

        At best, this will trip up the stupid.

        I have never seen a stupid hooker... I am sure this will catch a lot of people. I won't stop anything, but it will result in more arrests and fine$, so will be a success.

  • Great idea, now craigslist get to take calls from the DA about prostitution AND cc fraud.

    Most likely though, sketchy posters will probably just start posting on w4m, ths, lss, etc.

  • Sarcasm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Renraku (518261) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @07:45PM (#25668863) Homepage

    Most of the times when the police set up stings for Craigslist ads, several things are required. First, the motive. Obviously money. Then they have to get the prostitute to agree to sex-for-money. I don't think agreeing to it over the phone or via Internet is enough for a conviction. Most stings involve a police officer setting up a 'date' with one of these posters and then springing the trap.

    Usually they'll get one hotel room for it somewhere and arrest several in a night.

    That being said, why should the government care if someone wants to get right to the point and exchange money directly for sex? There are plenty of people that are too busy/socially inept/ugly/etc to get sex the usual way. So the result is to effectively outlaw their only means of sexual outlet with other people?

    • by phatvw (996438)

      There are plenty of people that are too busy/socially inept/ugly/etc to get sex the usual way. So the result is to effectively outlaw their only means of sexual outlet with other people?

      Beer has enabled ugly people to get sex for centuries.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by vux984 (928602)

      That being said, why should the government care if someone wants to get right to the point and exchange money directly for sex?

      Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there. And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear. That isn't how business transactions are supposed to be conducted.

      So society has decided there are a few things you just can't sell, because it leads to extreme exploitation/harm. So, you can't sell your organs or sex.

      Does th

      • Re:Sarcasm (Score:5, Insightful)

        by evanbd (210358) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @08:31PM (#25669417)

        But if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal? Because I don't believe society should put people into a position where they only consent to sex to survive.

        What makes you think making it illegal helps? The way to stop people having sex for money to survive is to make it so they don't need to. If they need to, they will, and making it illegal just makes it riskier for them. As you say, society shouldn't put them in that position; it certainly shouldn't put them in a position where they need to have illegal sex to survive.

        People having sex to survive, and that sex being illegal, are two different problems. Solving either one while ignoring the other is better than doing nothing, though obviously solving both is better.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jollyreaper (513215)

        There are plenty of people that need new organs too, some of them die from the lack. I sleep fine at night, I think I'll survive knowing some 'too busy dirty asshole' didn't get to buy sex.

        Or some dirty filthy faggot isn't having gay sex, thank God. Or some dirty filthy hippie isn't living in a commune, thank God. And what about the dirty filthy atheists sleeping in on Sundays? Should get them to church where they can work it out with the Lord!

        As for your talk of women having sex for money, I can't tell you how many failed marriages I've seen essentially amounted to the same thing. The woman is with the man because of his earning potential. He loses his job, can't pull down six figures at a n

      • Re:Sarcasm (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CodeBuster (516420) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @09:18PM (#25669961)

        Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there.

        Hence the purpose of regulation. In certain counties of Nevada, for example, whore houses are regulated and legal businesses with employment applications, W-2's, on-site security, medical staff, and every thing else that one might expect in a professional, legal, and regulated business. Those who choose to operate outside that system are still busted, even in those counties. This sort of arrangement removes the coercion from the profession. Now, before you say, "no women would willing chose that profession" remember that these women are earning thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars a month for basically unskilled labor. The fact that some people might not choose to do a job if they weren't paid doesn't mean that the job should be outlawed for being exploitative (someone has to work all of those McJobs after all).

        So society has decided there are a few things you just can't sell, because it leads to extreme exploitation/harm. So, you can't sell your organs or sex.

        Which it really has no right to do. There is no worse tyranny than to remove from adults the sovereign ability to have control, even choices that you might disagree with, over their own bodies. The state doesn't own your body, it belongs to you and you alone.

        Does this -really- bother you? If so, you are in the distinct minority.

        The Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the minority, the majority generally looks after itself.

        but if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal?

        There simply need to be fines large enough to prevent under the table competition to the official legalized venues. The system is already up and running in parts of Nevada. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to legalize, regulate, and tax prostitution.

        Because I don't believe society should put people into a position where they only consent to sex to survive.

        How is that different from someone taking any other job that you find undesirable (ala Dirty Jobs) to survive? Should society ban people from shoveling hog manure or cleaning up pigeon poop because you think the job is dirty and nasty and nobody should be "forced" to do it to survive?

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Jedi Alec (258881)

          remember that these women are earning thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars a month for basically unskilled labor.

          Unskilled???

    • by jcr (53032)

      Most stings involve a police officer setting up a 'date' with one of these posters and then springing the trap.

      As a taxpayer, this bugs me about as much as the war on drugs. I want the cops to be concentrating on dangerous criminals. Burglars, muggers, murderers, and of course, politicians. Two people exchanging sex for money doesn't endanger me in any way.

      -jcr

  • by MartinSchou (1360093) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @07:49PM (#25668899)

    If they are donating money to a charity to combat child exploitation, can we please have that charity fight the constant "think of the kids", "harm to kids", "oh noes, kids might see this" exploitation?

    Their motto should be a George Carlin quote: "Fuck the children!"

  • by thenewguy001 (1290738) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @07:49PM (#25668917)
    Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. So why isn't selling fucking legal?
    • by forkazoo (138186) <wrosecransNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday November 06, 2008 @08:18PM (#25669267) Homepage

      Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. So why isn't selling fucking legal?

      The illegality of each of those things is negative. So, when you multiply them together, you are bound to wind up with a result that has positive illegality, duh. It's pretty basic arithmetic. Of course, it does lead to the little known fact that doing any two legal things together is illegal. Aside from selling fucking, driving while blindfolded is another relatively obvious example. Most minor cases of doing two legal things at the same time are never prosecuted, but standing while muttering is technically not legal, thanks to math.

      Of course, the circumvent the issue, you just need to do a third legal thing while you whore yourself out, like read a book. Then the extra minus sign multiplies through and they can't do anything to you.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by guyminuslife (1349809)

      Eating is legal. Babies are legal. So why isn't eating babies legal? ;-)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Savatte (111615)

      It's like Matt Groening's great cinema paradox:

      the french are funy
      sex is funny
      comedy is funny

      yet no french sex comedy is funny

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PPH (736903)

      So why isn't selling fucking legal?

      Because it undermines the Church's attempt to monopolize men's source of pussy.

  • by religious freak (1005821) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @07:53PM (#25668955)
    I've looked at these a couple times with some friends. We've always wondered if these things are for real. I personally think you'll probably end up with a fat dude that wants to give you an STD. But since my friend is single and desperate, he wants to give it a shot.

    Anybody know what's up with these? Aren't these just scam artists, fake, criminals, or just plain old fashioned prostitutes?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by xstonedogx (814876)

      It's okay, you can tell us, which one is it? http://slashdot.org/~religious+freak/friends/ [slashdot.org]

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Some are real - it's all about being careful and cross referencing with other sites (like TER or BD). I mainly "hobby" during business trips, where I don't know the local landscape. I use (or I guess, used, past tense) CL for the quantity and a good representation of who is still in business and active. These are the ones I can xref to other sites and narrow my search to 1 or 2 final candidates. It works (or used to) well, I've gotten my fix on nearly every business trip the last 4 years.
  • ... how many /.ers are pro prostitute.

    On second thought it is kind of hard to get a date when you're living in your mom's basement.
  • Bummer (Score:5, Funny)

    by xs650 (741277) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @08:18PM (#25669269)
    There goes my social life.
  • About two weeks ago they decided to "curb spammers" by charging $25 to list a help wanted ad. When questioned, they offer up a FAQ [craigslist.org] which states that "We've charged for jobs in San Francisco for 10 years, no destruction so far."
    So one of the most expensive cities in the union is the base for comparison?

    I'm seeing a trend and I'm not liking it.

  • by PPH (736903) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @09:14PM (#25669923)
    ...CraigsList will be sending their representatives wearing big floppy hats, full length fur coats and numerous gold chains around to collect their fee from erotic service workers.
  • by NotQuiteReal (608241) on Thursday November 06, 2008 @11:27PM (#25671201) Journal
    Good enough to help elect a president, good enough to buy hooker ads.

    Not much difference between the two (hookers and politicians, no offense).

Memory fault -- brain fried

Working...