"Craigslist, by shutting off its 'adult services' section and slapping a 'censored' label in its place, may be engaging in a high-stakes stunt to influence public opinion...."
I'm not asking whether shutting off the adult services ads is the right thing to do — not that you can't discuss that if you want. I'm really wondering what's the point of accusing a business (or a person) of trying to influence public opinion when it takes some action that supposed to be the right thing to do.
I think the real accusation is that the action is only being taken because attention is being paid to a problem and that, later, when attention wanes, the business/person will go back to their old ways. But is that the situation Craiglist is in? If and when it goes back to its old ways, people are going to notice. Moreover, the recent attention has come in the form of threats of legal action, but Craigslist is obviously not liable (because of the Communications Decency Act, as explained at the link). It's not a matter, then, of trying to avoid these lawsuits by temporarily stopping (even assuming that would work).