The result of prohibiting online ads for sex work is that prostitutes have to seek customers on the street -- where they tend to be raped, harassed, and arrested. It does not help them that their would-be customers are arrested, too.
The article refers to arrested customers as "predatory". Perhaps some of them really were predatory, but if so that was by chance, if the criterion for arresting them was that they were looking for a prostitute to hire. Supposedly this practice is justified because they might by chance have hired a prostitute who was enslaved. However, for those prostitutes who are indeed enslaved, arresting their customers does not help free them, and neither does arresting the prostitutes.
Applying the same logic to other fields, the state would arrest would-be customers of manicures, fish, fruits and vegetables, laundry, and houses, because those things too are sometimes provided by enslaved workers. Fortunately, this misguided solution is not proposed for those fields.
To "hold abusers accountable" is a laudable goal, but I have a disturbing feeling that when the DA says "abusers" it means "customers", not violent men.
I hope these women find a better life, but the repressive laws are part of the obstacles in their way.