this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
626 points (98.9% liked)

News

23406 readers
3241 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I see this single study trotted out every time the subject comes up and the key factor to take into account is that this is reported trafficking. If legalized sex work means more light is shed on human trafficking that means more can be done about it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

key factor to take into account is that this is reported trafficking. If legalized sex work means more light is shed on human trafficking that means more can be done about it.

Just because more is reported doesn't mean more isn't also happening. In fact, one could reasonably expect reporting to go down as a percentage of incidents due to ordinary citizens not expecting sex workers to be involved in trafficking since sex work is now legal. That the number goes up after the stigma is removed seems to strongly indicate a correlation with a rise in actual trafficking.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

More or less is a matter of comparison. How do you compare with an underground activity that cannot be tracked as easily?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How do you compare with an underground activity that cannot be tracked as easily?

As with anything, you can only work with the data you actually have.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, but all you have is assumptions and you're assuming the increased reporting of trafficking means that trafficking is increasing rather than it just getting caught more. It's like when some governments fought over covid reporting. Keeping it hidden doesn't mean less of it is happening and making it more visible doesn't mean more of it is happening.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sure, but all you have is assumptions

Isn't that a bit of the pot calling the kettle black?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, because you presented the study as supposed proof of more human trafficking.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

First, I didn't present anything.

Second, it does prove that more human trafficking is reported.

You only have the assumption that bringing it into the light of day results in a higher rate of reporting against actual incidents. It's an interesting hypothesis, but without any evidence to support your assumption Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest answer is that the rates do not change drastically and there actually is more human trafficking to be reported.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You didn't present anything but you certainly act like you did. We're agreed in that it proves more human trafficking is reported but again, that doesn't mean more human trafficking is happening. Refer back to my example about covid case reporting. Incorrectly citing Occam's Razor doesn't strengthen your argument.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

You didn't present anything but you certainly act like you did.

I did no such thing.

We're agreed in that it proves more human trafficking is reported but again, that doesn't mean more human trafficking is happening.

Unless the reporting rates go down, then it must certainly does.

Refer back to my example about covid case reporting.

Your example of a concerted effort of large governmental agencies to hide the actual reported numbers is not actually relevant here. It wouldn't even be relevant if it were just random underreporting outside of governments as it doesn't have any similarity to decriminalizing sex work.

Incorrectly citing Occam's Razor doesn't strengthen your argument.

You have made more assumptions than I have. Tell me how you think Occam doesn't apply. You can't just declare an argument to be invalid and expect anyone to take your seriously.

What evidence do you have to support your theory that decriminalizing an activity increases the rate of reporting? If you don't have any, then you don't even have an argument. You only have your suppositions and theories.

It's entirely possible that you're correct, and decriminalization increases reporting without increasing activity. I have yet to see what mechanism you propose causes this quite curious paradox, so without some explanation you'll have to concede that you at least can offer no actual reason to believe it's true.