Talk:Human trafficking

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Crimeicon.svg

This Crime related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png


Customers can be traffickers too[edit]

I think it's important to point out that there doesn't need to be a boss or middleman in order for acts to be deemed "human trafficking." For example, a 17-year-old prostitute can sell her services to a guy (without any pimp being involved) and the guy can still be prosecuted for human trafficking, even though she was above the age of consent. I don't know if the offense is explicitly called "human trafficking" in the statutes, but these legislative changes were made as part of the push to combat human trafficking. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Needs rework[edit]

  • This article probably needs a rework. It almost single-mindedly against the idea that sexual trafficking is a major problem. It doesn't even list how sex trafficking impacts victims! Also, this article was started by, ahem, Men's Right's Activist EXTREMIST (capitalization not my own), who pretty much defined the tone of the article as being "not a big deal yo". Specific claims that I believe are unsourced and warrantless are "Prostitution is increasingly being relabeled "sex trafficking", regardless of whether or not force, fraud, or coercion (denial of agency) are involved. Lurid tales of foreign women (mostly from Eastern Europe) being abducted or deceived to serve as prostitutes against their will during the 1990s led to passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which offers amnesty and T-1 visas to foreign women in exchange for co-operation with investigations of international prostitution rings. Despite the ghastly estimates of the numbers of women crossing international borders as prostitutes against their will, there have been very few takers for T-1 visas", which is completely unsourced. A look at TVPA's history (https://www.traffickingmatters.com/on-this-day-in-history-the-trafficking-victims-protection-act-passed-in-congress/) suggests sex trafficking was not even well-defined in America legally before the act was passed, and was almost unprosecuted, which contradicts the idea that sex trafficking was somehow expanded to include something previously defined as something else; sex trafficking was undefined! The statement "The failure to confirm large amounts of international trafficking (defined as denial of agency) for prostitution coupled with the profiles of traffickers that have been confirmed through criminal investigation suggests that the broad-brush approach to promoting the issue of sex trafficking is a moral panic that disregards actual circumstances." is equally warrantless. What is a large amount? I — and RW — (rightly) condemn lynching and support lynching as a federal crime (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_punishment#Rendition), but let's be honest, how many people have been lynced since 1980? Does this count as a "large amount", or are we going through a "moral" panic? Also, statistics on human trafficking can be found in this helpful, source-full wikipedia blurb:
  • "The article published in 2019,“Combating Child Sex Trafficking in the United States,” by Brooke Axtell, includes statics stating “83% of sex trafficking victims in the United Stated are US citizens.”[37] A study was held by the University of Texas that found that, “approximately 79,000 children have been placed in this field, just in Texas alone.”[37] In the article, “Sex Trafficking” on Polarisproject.org, it states" From 2007 to 2017, the National Human Trafficking Hotline, operated by Polaris, has received reports of 34,700 sex trafficking cases inside the United States. In 2017, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children estimated that 1 in 7 endangered runaways reported to them were likely sex trafficking victims. The International Labor Organization estimates that there are 4.8 million people trapped in forced sexual exploitation globally."[38] The article “Human Trafficking in America Among Worst in World Report” by Andrew Keiper includes ​“​The Department of Justice provided more than $31 million for 45 victim service providers that offered services to trafficking survivors across the country. It was a demonstrable increase; the DOJ only provided $16 million to 18 organizations in 2017, according to the report.”[39] In March 2019, the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, published a report that they'd identified 1,032 victims between 2014 and 2016 and another 4,209 individuals at risk of being trafficked during the same.[40]" Clearly sex trafficking, even if you take away all the voluntary cases, still exists in a "large amount".
  • With all this being said, it is my opinion — and my action — to delete the two previously mentioned, unsourced and unwarranted assertions. It is also my action to add statements showing the long-term negative impacts of sex trafficking as well as its continued presence. If anyone wants to revert it, tell me whyThisSiteRuxExDee2 (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do check this eventually. I'd like to know that my comments here stand. ThisSiteRuxExDee2 (talk) 07:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The article by Axtell is basically an opinion piece, and Axtell is not a journalist or a researcher, so its quality is not too high. A significant problem with sex trafficking statistics and whether one considers it a major problem or not is definitional because the public view of what it is often differs from the legal definition. This is what I wrote on the QAnon page:
The reality of sex trafficking is rather different than QAnon proponents would like to have one believe. While it's true that coercive child sex trafficking exists, it is quite rare.[1] First, the the legal definition of trafficking is rather different than most people think: it includes situations in which an underage teen has sex with a john in exchange for money, food, drugs, or shelter, even without a pimp being involved, the john is considered the trafficker;[2] this is known as 'survival sex'.Wikipedia Second, most of the survival sex involving children is because "the child is homeless, has run away from foster care or has been kicked out by their parents, often due to being queer or transgender. Many of these kids end up trading sex for money, drugs or a place to sleep because it’s their only way to survive."[3] The problem for these homeless teens is often that foster care and other support systems that could keep them off the streets and out of prostitution are often chronically underfunded.[4] So, the situation then is that deeply conservative parents form a pool of people who are likely to reject their LGBTQ or nonconforming kids, who hate taxes and funding social services, and who form a base for QAnon recruitment. This amounts to a form of psychological projection wherein QAnon supporters baseelessly accuse liberals of the most wildly reprehensive actions for which conservatives are in reality at least partly responsible.
Bongolian (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem admitting that's all true. It's not hard to realize that the public is often out of touch with reality... although I suspect we have different reasons for that though :). Anyway, even if that is all valid and true — which I assume it is — hammering in "Child sex trafficking bad" both protects RW from being misconstrued, and helps sentimental souls like me sleep at night. If you know cons say "atheists are pedos", and you think "that's unfair, pedos bad", then it'd be a good idea to make clear, well, "pedos SUCK super DUPER MUCH". Also, no matter what social forces drives children to such sad, depressing, morally horrific states, that does not change the fact that in child trafficking, there is a direct criminal/psychopath/kiddy-molestor/hopefully-one-day-gallows-hanger, and a direct victim. The debate on child trafficking can certainly include social forces, but the crime and victims itself, irregardless of their identity or background, should be highlighted primarily.
Last thing, there are plenty of real pedo busts, even if they are not as movie-like as the headlines would suggest. https://www.traffickingmatters.com/trending-cases/ and https://usiaht.org/news/category/perpetrators/# are all good places to see real child and sex trafficking in action, and cheer for the criminal's punishment in real time. Even if, somehow (and I am 99.999% sure this a false statement) 50% of the total cases there, in these specifically anti-trafficking websites, are whack, there's still 50% too many.
Just realized I'm not logged in. Oh bother 128.135.98.162 (talk) 10:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Also I just realized Axtell was my source. Oh great. Thought u were supporting me. Never mind. Regardless, there are like 3 other sources in that wikipedia article alone, and I don't think any of them are even used in the new article proper. So I think I'm still fine with my assertions :) — Unsigned, by: 128.135.98.162 / talk / contribs
For fuck's sake, please, this is not difficult! Sign your posts with (~~~~) or (if that's too fucking hard) by clicking on the fucking sign BUTTON: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) This keeps the place tidy and stops you looking like a complete arsing tool so please, just fucking do it already. --Goatspeed. Fossil evidence of my evolutionCircularREmail2.gifasoningMy experiments 17:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The state of this article[edit]

The state of this article at the moment is absolutely awful. Several edits were made last November by a single editor which inserted a load of hyperbole which is completely out of tone with this website. There's stuff about 'a ghastly sight of coercion', 'a grave evil in our time', and 'the tip of the iceberg' which reads like a scare story in the Daily Mail. I would appreciate some feedback on this article from more experienced editors before making any changes. Thank you. Effy Midwinter (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to try to revise or improve the page. The person who inserted that text seems to no longer be around. Bongolian (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
This. If there's a large bit you want to completely rework, you can drop it in a Sandbox page or bring up the changes here in Talk if you want folks to eyeball it first. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I just made a mess of signing my name when editing this. Hope it's OK. Effy Midwinter (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You're fine. I've re-added a bit of what you removed, less the editorializing. The institute cited is referenced elsewhere in the article as well, and seems to be alright. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 02:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Effy! It's a good rewrite, IMO. I think there's still some value in discussing trafficking hoaxes/moral panics (especially given the popularity of Pizzagate and QAnon conspiracy theories), but I'm good with it. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

a disgrace[edit]

poor and vague definition of what constitutes trafficking in the opening.

the sex trafficking section of this article (most of the article) is exclusively concerned with the us, focusing on 3 specific areas, fosta-sesta seguing in backpage, giving a skewed impression of the issue by highlighting the involvement of kamala harris, and of all the cases surrounding backpage, it gives only the briefest of summaries on the case where 6 high ranking staffers from backpage including the ceo were prosecuted on assorted charges, none of which were sex trafficking, relating to facilitating of prostitution and money laundering, and ruling that prosecutors unfairly tainted the jury by continually referring to child sex trafficking while this was never a charge. gives the impression that sex trafficking never happened at backpage and it is a victim of a government vendetta of some kind. it ignores all the preceding cases which centred whether backpage were liable for adverts that appeared on their site that trafficked sex and/or underage sex. the 6 employees not being charged with any trafficking doesnt mean there was no trafficking on their site. it also ignores the cases where backpage were sued by victims who were trafficked on their site. the victims lost not because they were not trafficked via backpage - they were - but on issues of free speech, specifically section 230 of the communications act wwhich protected backpage from the dodgy adverts on its site. this section is about trafficking via the internet, bit ignores the broader issues of liability, free speech, and only gives a cursory nod to the vague recent laws removing a safer option for non trafficked sex workers for plying their trade than the street. there is some additional editorialising about the flawed data of one single source while loading up on the moral panic angle. no other sources for data available? the over emphasis on moral panics (the satanic panic reference is particularly facetious) while giving no view counter to this with mention of comfirmed cases or cases not involving the internet is disingenuous.

pornhub is the next major focus. still internet based, and did i say pornhub? i meant exodus cry. a charity that is just one group involved in the pornhub business, most of this doesnt look at their role but seeks to discredit them by highlighting assorted twattery and smearing of of a couple of journos. there is little here that looks at what issues pornhub may or may not have had (like having no way of know is much of their content contained trafficked victims, rape victims, child abuse victims, that channel that did get done for trafficking, revenge porn, and their reluctance to act when highlighted about it), just the smearing of a few of the dozen or so groups that took issue with pornhub.

onlyfans the third main focus. internet again. not much meat here. crass editorialising, overstating the 'backlash', no mention about of issues it might have have had with moderation and being slow to remove explcit vids of minors.

the focus on these 3 areas, all internet based, tells me nothing about trafficking and goes out its way to present trafficking it as a non issue. it barely and only grudgingly mentions that it does exist - not where it exists, or the extent, or what it looks like. this article tells me only controversy over 3 internet sites and its all a moral panic anyway.

the final 'measuring the problem' relies one study and the flaws of one data source and only in the last few sentences is a world beyond the us hinted. labour trafficking doesnt even get a look in despite it being the lions share of traffick.

but its all a moral panic. the third largest criminal industry in the world. a moral panic. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Like George Lucas, I may have gone too far in a few places. By all means, tell me what you really think. A lot of this stuff is recent news, and trying to compile and contextualize it all is difficult. I've even thought that a lot of this stuff actually belongs on the Pornography article, where it might be a better fit, but I digress.
Just a few points in response. Apologies for the mess, this is the only way I could think of when it came to formatting.
  • gives the impression that sex trafficking never happened at backpage and it is a victim of a government vendetta of some kind.
That was certainly not my intention, and I've added info to reflect that individuals were prosecuted for using Backpage as a medium for pimping and trafficking. However, FOSTA-SESTA was definitely introduced in response to sites like Backpage, although they were shut down before the bills passed into law.
  • the over emphasis on moral panics (the satanic panic reference is particularly facetious)
Hence the note that sex trafficking is undeniably real, while SRA was not. However, I would argue that an issue can be real and also be subject to panic; child abduction is certainly real, but pedophilic Hollywood celebrity blood cults harvesting teenage adrenal glands is not.
  • pornhub is the next major focus. still internet based, and did i say pornhub? i meant exodus cry. a charity that is just one group involved in the pornhub business, most of this doesnt look at their role but seeks to discredit them by highlighting assorted twattery and smearing of of a couple of journos.
They literally call it Traffickinghub, and are easily the most prominent group involved, hence their inclusion. If you look at the issue, it's difficult to ignore them, they've intentionally placed themselves at the forefront (see the petition with millions of sigs) and much of the criticism is either from them or funnelled through them. Their role is to shut Pornhub down; they've stated this many times. Their method is generally posting on social media to raise support. It's difficult to find any neutral links on the subject. But I don't think that pointing out hypocrisy or ulterior motives is smearing. It's not as if their campaign against Porhub was prompted by an official FBI investigation. If it had been, the site would not still be active.
  • there is little here that looks at what issues pornhub may or may not have had (like having no way of know is much of their content contained trafficked victims, rape victims, child abuse victims, that channel that did get done for trafficking, revenge porn, and their reluctance to act when highlighted about it), just the smearing of a few of the dozen or so groups that took issue with pornhub.
Does such data exist? If so, I may have missed a good source. Some of the only concrete stuff I could find came from the Internet Watch Foundation. The Kristof article explores PH's lack of action prior to deleting most of their content, which doesn't seem to have made any difference to EC.
  • onlyfans the third main focus. internet again. not much meat here. crass editorialising, overstating the 'backlash', no mention about of issues it might have have had with moderation and being slow to remove explcit vids of minors.
OF did reverse their decision, and I don't think they would have done that without some serious backlash, but it's difficult to find any neutral sources on this. The BBC article I linked goes into the moderation issue in some detail. And this is hardly the first article on this wiki to engage in some crass editorialising. I don't believe there are always two equal sides to a story; sometimes I can't help calling bullshit. I think a skeptical eye is warranted, especially when religion and governments are involved, as they are in this case, and that tends to obscure the real issue. If you want a plainer overview there's always regular Wiki.
  • it barely and only grudgingly mentions that it does exist - not where it exists, or the extent, or what it looks like.
I've certainly read harrowing accounts online from anti-traff orgs, as well as personal accounts, and I could add info about those. However, some of the studies I looked at (such as Neumayer) mention the difficulty of establishing clear numbers due to the illicit nature of trafficking; apparently even the UN data isn't very reliable (although the Neumayer study goes on to use it anyway).
  • but its all a moral panic. the third largest criminal industry in the world. a moral panic.
I certainly never added anything like that, nor would I. 25 million people in forced labour is not a moral panic at all, and I've not said that in any of my edits. 2A00:23C7:99A4:5000:FD08:CDC9:1818:C315 (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

One important thing this article currently overlooks is sex trafficking by powerful individuals, like Jeffrey Epstein, NXIVM, Peter NygårdWikipedia, Samuel KleinWikipedia, etc., as well as the imagined case of QAnon. Plutocow (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

it over looks sex trafficking full stop. it over looks human trafficking full stop. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
i will not deign to reply to the bon. ive said i what needed to say about this article. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it overlooks ST, it just need more detail; historical background would also be nice, since slave trafficking goes back to antiquity. I referenced Epstein, but he could use his own subheading, as could several other infamous cases over the past few years. 86.154.177.175 (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)