https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/aug/19/onlyfans-to-ban-adult-material-after-pressure-from-payment-processors
QuoteOnlyFans, the subscriber-only website synonymous with pornography, has announced it will ban adult material from the site after pressure from its payment processors.
The company will continue to allow some posts containing nudity but "any content containing sexually-explicit conduct" will be banned, with the site instead focusing on more mainstream content.
The London-headquartered outlet has exploded in popularity during lockdown, bringing in billions of pounds of revenue as more than 130 million users signed up to subscribe to content or pay to chat with "creators". Although OnlyFans insists it has a wide range of people creating material for the site, ranging from chefs to yoga instructors, by far the most popular content on the site is pornography.
OnlyFans said the ban, which will come into effect in October, followed pressure from banks and payment processors who raised concerns about the material it hosts. Rather than lose its ability to take payments, which would effectively kill the business altogether, OnlyFans has instead chosen to ban the adult material that made its name.
"In order to ensure the long-term sustainability of the platform, and to continue to host an inclusive community of creators and fans, we must evolve our content guidelines," said a spokesperson for the site.
Payment processing companies increasingly control what material pornography sites are able to host. Last December, Visa and Mastercard briefly banned payments to websites owned by online pornography giant MindGeek, following reports it was hosting "revenge porn" uploaded without the consent of those involved. The financial businesses only backtracked when MindGeek deleted tens of millions of unverified videos from its sites such as PornHub.
OnlyFans has enabled tens of thousands of sex workers to earn substantial incomes in return for handing over 20% of their earnings to the company, with many creators saying it has given them financial freedom. Internal figures obtained by Axios suggest about 16,000 creators earn at least $50,000 (£36,000) annually from the site.
However, it is has also faced growing political and regulatory scrutiny over its ability to remove illegal and exploitative material. Earlier this month more than a hundred US congressmen and women demanded a department of justice investigation into OnlyFans, relating to the alleged presence of underage material on the site.
Such issues have scared off potential investors in the company and driven it towards seeking a more mainstream business model similar to other crowdfunding sites such as Patreon, while removing the sex workers who built its audience.
An OnlyFans spokesperson said: "We will be sharing more details in the coming days, and we will actively support and guide our creators through this change in content guidelines.
"OnlyFans remains committed to the highest levels of safety and content moderation of any social platform. All creators are verified prior to being able to upload any content to OnlyFans, and all uploaded content is checked by automated systems and human moderators."
Even as the audience for online pornography continues to grow, mainstream internet companies have increasingly distanced themselves from adult material. In 2018 it was banned by Tumblr, while Facebook and Instagram also have bans on explicit content. Twitter is now one of the few leading social media platforms that continues to allow pornography.
The company was founded in 2016 by the Essex-based Stokely family who continue to be the public faces of the business and continue to extract substantial sums from the company. However, corporate filings show that it is now entirely owned by US-based online pornography veteran Leonid Radvinsky, who keeps a low profile.
So they're defunct. Wonder what platform will take their place.
:lol: Business suicide.
Ah yes, the slut must be punished. People are weird.
RIP
I guess I'm going to make rent next month!
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2021, 03:43:37 PM
QuoteOnlyFans, the subscriber-only website synonymous with pornography...
I thought that PornHub was the website synonymous with pornography. Shows you how behind the times I am regarding porn; I've never even heard of OnlyFans.
Quote... about 16,000 creators earn at least $50,000 (£36,000) annually from the site.
The loss of that will be a significant hit to the UK's GDP, already reeling from Brexit-related issues. The UK government should protect its industries better, even if it's the porn industry.
I'm always surprised when businesses decide they don't want to make money any more. It's a bit like when Tumblr banned sexual content and "female presenting nipples". I also don't understand why banks care about this - I mean they must have lots of unsavoury business customers. Seems weird to care too much about porn.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2021, 05:32:48 PM
I'm always surprised when businesses decide they don't want to make money any more. It's a bit like when Tumblr banned sexual content and "female presenting nipples". I also don't understand why banks care about this - I mean they must have lots of unsavoury business customers. Seems weird to care too much about porn.
They're all terrified of child pornography.
Do any banks handle Catholic church money?
Quote from: grumbler on August 19, 2021, 05:28:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 19, 2021, 03:43:37 PM
QuoteOnlyFans, the subscriber-only website synonymous with pornography...
I thought that PornHub was the website synonymous with pornography. Shows you how behind the times I am regarding porn; I've never even heard of OnlyFans.
Meh, both are. Pornhub is like Youtube: you create an account and you upload whatever you want, within the guidelines of the site. On Onlyfans, unless I'm mistaken, it has to be "you", the owner of the account.
The comparison to Patreon for artists is quite apt. A musician would post his own songs on Patreon, while I could technically post any kind of video on Youtube (within their guidelines) without necessarily being the owner of the content.
And I always thought Onlyfans was exclusively for porn/nudity/sexy material. Whenever I've heard of it, it was within this context. I guess I'm old too, for different reasons. :P
Quote... about 16,000 creators earn at least $50,000 (£36,000) annually from the site.
The loss of that will be a significant hit to the UK's GDP, already reeling from Brexit-related issues. The UK government should protect its industries better, even if it's the porn industry.
[/quote]
Hmm, I think they're not all in the UK though. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2021, 05:34:23 PM
They're all terrified of child pornography.
True - but I think OnlyFans has far more control over that because of what viper said.
But you're right. I think child safety is such a huge risk/fear that companies will do what they wouldn't for almost anything else, it's why Apple have started looking at photos on iPhones and all the social media companies have changed their rules to comply with a new UK regulation which is pretty astonishing for a medium size European market - but it's about children.
And in fairness as much as I'm dubious about the privacy impact of what Apple are doing or the benefit of the UK regulation, it is a huge, real problem. Facebook alone identifies 17 million uploads every month from a database 700,000 known images of child abuse.
Ok why the hell would we use onlyfans for not porn? We already have patreon.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2021, 05:32:48 PM
I'm always surprised when businesses decide they don't want to make money any more. It's a bit like when Tumblr banned sexual content and "female presenting nipples". I also don't understand why banks care about this - I mean they must have lots of unsavoury business customers. Seems weird to care too much about porn.
I thought Pornhub had credit card payment, but I just checked, and it's crypto currency only now.
I guess it makes sense, then, that cc companies would pressure Onlyfans to remove all porn content.
Quote from: The Brain on August 19, 2021, 05:36:36 PM
Do any banks handle Catholic church money?
The only one that would touch their money has ties to New York and Las Vegas mobsters.
Quote from: viper37 on August 19, 2021, 06:00:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2021, 05:32:48 PM
I'm always surprised when businesses decide they don't want to make money any more. It's a bit like when Tumblr banned sexual content and "female presenting nipples". I also don't understand why banks care about this - I mean they must have lots of unsavoury business customers. Seems weird to care too much about porn.
I thought Pornhub had credit card payment, but I just checked, and it's crypto currency only now.
I guess it makes sense, then, that cc companies would pressure Onlyfans to remove all porn content.
I have to question how much this move to "protect the children" is not actually endangering children. People are going to get porn and consume it. So instead of allowing porn consumers to directly pay performers we are going to...what? Send all that money away from the actual performers to shadowy gatekeepers? Won't that enrich human trafficking and exploitation of sex workers instead of reduce it?
It seems highly counter-productive.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2021, 06:00:52 PM
Ok why the hell would we use onlyfans for not porn? We already have patreon.
Didn't it actually start out as a way for personal trainers and the like to offer online lessons?
Quote from: The Larch on August 19, 2021, 06:08:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2021, 06:00:52 PM
Ok why the hell would we use onlyfans for not porn? We already have patreon.
Didn't it actually start out as a way for personal trainers and the like to offer online lessons?
How exactly does one use OnlyFans for online lessons? Wouldn't I use Zoom or something where I could interact with my trainer and they could see what I am doing?
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2021, 06:10:12 PM
How exactly does one use OnlyFans for online lessons? Wouldn't I use Zoom or something where I could interact with my trainer and they could see what I am doing?
Zoom doesn't have a payment interface, does it?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2021, 05:58:36 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2021, 05:34:23 PM
They're all terrified of child pornography.
True - but I think OnlyFans has far more control over that because of what viper said.
They have more control, but honestly, the limit is 18 years old. I don't think someone could manage to register under a fake name and post nude pictures/videos of 10 years old and be consistently ignored. The problem *might* (I honestly do not know if it is a generalized problem) be 15-16 year old girls with a fake IDs posting nude selfiest to earn cash.
I went to check and you do need a credit card for the subscription fee and a bank account for them to deposit your earnings. However, I signed in with my Google Account, so abuse is possible, if there are no other checks beyond that.
It's also weird, I now visit this site and there's something else than porn appearing over there. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2021, 06:11:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2021, 06:10:12 PM
How exactly does one use OnlyFans for online lessons? Wouldn't I use Zoom or something where I could interact with my trainer and they could see what I am doing?
Zoom doesn't have a payment interface, does it?
It does have more of a way to actually, you know, train people. Otherwise it is not much of a personal training but just some training videos.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2021, 06:07:32 PM
I have to question how much this move to "protect the children" is not actually endangering children. People are going to get porn and consume it. So instead of allowing porn consumers to directly pay performers we are going to...what? Send all that money away from the actual performers to shadowy gatekeepers? Won't that enrich human trafficking and exploitation of sex workers instead of reduce it?
It seems highly counter-productive.
I don't think the payment processor cares about protecting the children that much. But they do care about their image. If thousands of customers per day complains they are allowing child porn producers to get rich, true or not, they might be tempted to pressure a particular source of complaint, or drop it altogether if it's smallish compared to the rest of their business.
Like, say, Disney firing an actress over some silly social media post. It's not that they believe the actress is spreading hatred of X, but it's because they are receiving complaints and they fear for their image with this annoyance. Like, Apple willingly using subcontractors with child labour but now fighting against pedo pornography. It's not that they really care about their fate of other people's children, but they do care about their ultimate bottom line, and that is very dependant on their image.
Like corporations and rich people buying green indulgence to travel by airplane all over the planet every week. It's not that they don't know that their gift will plant a tree that will require 30 years to absorb the CO2 emission of a one-way trip. But it makes them look good to the public.
As for childporn, I don't think the majority of traffickers will pay for it, willingly, with their credit cards. Although human dumbness should never amaze me. I think the majority of it is traded/exchanged on the dark web, if traded, it's got to be done with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, or possibly more secure stuff like Monero.
I don't think they're worried so much about bad PR as criminal charges.
Quote from: Valmy on August 19, 2021, 06:07:32 PM
I have to question how much this move to "protect the children" is not actually endangering children. People are going to get porn and consume it. So instead of allowing porn consumers to directly pay performers we are going to...what? Send all that money away from the actual performers to shadowy gatekeepers? Won't that enrich human trafficking and exploitation of sex workers instead of reduce it?
It seems highly counter-productive.
I agree, but you have to remember that, when it comes to child porn, people would rather see the innocent punished than let the guilty get away with it. It's a vile business and nuking it from orbit seems the only way to fight it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2021, 06:22:16 PM
I don't think they're worried so much about bad PR as criminal charges.
Yes. It's extremely easy to get charged and extremely difficult to fight the charges. Remember the people sent to prison for being Satanists performing witchcraft with children in secret tunnels far underground?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2021, 05:32:48 PM
I'm always surprised when businesses decide they don't want to make money any more. It's a bit like when Tumblr banned sexual content and "female presenting nipples". I also don't understand why banks care about this - I mean they must have lots of unsavoury business customers. Seems weird to care too much about porn.
They didn't have much of a choice, though, according to the article. Visa and Mastercard decided to stop processing payments, so it's a choice between a massive blow to their business or the what looks like an inability to do business altogether.
And Visa told me it was everywhere I wanted to be :(
I find it concerning that financial institutions seem to have a veto power over businesses. Maybe you don't mind them cracking down on porn sites, but what checks are in place to keep them from imposing judgements on other kinds of businesses? In democratic societies, I think those with monopolistic power need to be answerable to the public in some way.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2021, 06:22:16 PM
I don't think they're worried so much about bad PR as criminal charges.
in the case of Pornhub, the criminal charges are/were a real possibility.
In the case of Onlyfans, I do not know. From the article Garbon posted, it seems more like rumours/suspicions than a reality. They're supposed to take some steps to insure the content actually belongs to the owner of the account, but beyond that, I do not know much.
Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2021, 07:30:21 PM
I find it concerning that financial institutions seem to have a veto power over businesses.
Well, credit card companies and other payment processors have seen their power rise tremendously with the age of internet shopping. AFAIK, you can't pay Amazon by check.
Quote
Maybe you don't mind them cracking down on porn sites, but what checks are in place to keep them from imposing judgements on other kinds of businesses? In democratic societies, I think those with monopolistic power need to be answerable to the public in some way.
Well, all banks have tremendous power over their smaller customers. It's nothing really new. Back in the old days, they would have ordered a pogrom against Jews, but they're not as dominant in the banking sector as they were.
Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2021, 07:30:21 PM
I find it concerning that financial institutions seem to have a veto power over businesses. Maybe you don't mind them cracking down on porn sites, but what checks are in place to keep them from imposing judgements on other kinds of businesses? In democratic societies, I think those with monopolistic power need to be answerable to the public in some way.
I don't know for sure but I don't think it's all that discretionary. Fear of prosecution is not at their discretion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2021, 07:52:29 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2021, 07:30:21 PM
I find it concerning that financial institutions seem to have a veto power over businesses. Maybe you don't mind them cracking down on porn sites, but what checks are in place to keep them from imposing judgements on other kinds of businesses? In democratic societies, I think those with monopolistic power need to be answerable to the public in some way.
I don't know for sure but I don't think it's all that discretionary. Fear of prosecution is not at their discretion.
In some ways that's even worse. If payment processors engage in censorship in response to threat from the government, then that makes it a government censorship rather than an abuse of monopoly power. It's a more subtle form of censorship than having laws passed to that effect, but just as effective, and with fewer avenues of redress.
Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2021, 08:01:28 PM
In some ways that's even worse. If payment processors engage in censorship in response to threat from the government, then that makes it a government censorship rather than an abuse of monopoly power. It's a more subtle form of censorship than having laws passed to that effect, but just as effective, and with fewer avenues of redress.
We're talking about child pornography. You can call that censorship but it kind of misses the point.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2021, 08:20:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2021, 08:01:28 PM
In some ways that's even worse. If payment processors engage in censorship in response to threat from the government, then that makes it a government censorship rather than an abuse of monopoly power. It's a more subtle form of censorship than having laws passed to that effect, but just as effective, and with fewer avenues of redress.
We're talking about child pornography. You can call that censorship but it kind of misses the point.
We're not actually talking about child pornography. We're talking about something which may get you swept up under child pornography laws through no guilty intent of your own, but that's a whole other problematic can of worms. The threat of being classified as aiding child abuse or terrorism is another way to deploy government censorship without calling it such, and it's already widely used in some countries.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2021, 08:20:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2021, 08:01:28 PM
In some ways that's even worse. If payment processors engage in censorship in response to threat from the government, then that makes it a government censorship rather than an abuse of monopoly power. It's a more subtle form of censorship than having laws passed to that effect, but just as effective, and with fewer avenues of redress.
We're talking about child pornography. You can call that censorship but it kind of misses the point.
I found more details. As I suspected, most of these cases involve teens with fake IDs.
Link (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57255983)
Quote
[...]Warning: Story contains adult themes and language
There is a range of content on the site but it is best known for pornography, and requires users to be over 18.
OnlyFans was a big winner during the pandemic, exploding in popularity as much of the world was housebound. The social media platform has grown nearly 10-fold since 2019, and now has more than 120 million users.
Some creators have become millionaires from their accounts, yet for most it has been a lifeline or a second income during the pandemic.
But BBC News has investigated concerns that under-18s are selling explicit videos on the site, despite it being illegal for individuals to post or share indecent images of children.
As part of our investigation, we found that one 17-year-old from a suburb in the south-east of England had sold videos of herself masturbating and playing with sex toys, while an under-18 participated in graphic videos hosted on an adult account in Nevada, US, in breach of the company's terms and conditions.
We were also able to set up an account for an underage creator, by using a 26-year-old's identification, showing how the site's age-verification process could be cheated.
[...]
Basically, most cases involve some help to cheat the system. I'm not surprised the algorythm can't detect a girl using her sister's id. That's probably the oldest trick in the book for underaged girls&boys who want to get into places reserved for 18+, like clubs&bars, use the ID of their sibling. Humans often have trouble detecting it.
The more shocking stories seems designed specifically for shock value and don't seem to represent a real trend, unlike Pornhub/Mindgeek who basically didn't check anything and relied on an handful of people to check a sample of the videos posted everyday.
Seems to me that there is a market for a non-crypto-currency payment service that is fine with everything that is legal.
In the UK, is it illegal to have done business with someone who later turns out to have been committing crimes?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 19, 2021, 05:34:23 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2021, 05:32:48 PM
I'm always surprised when businesses decide they don't want to make money any more. It's a bit like when Tumblr banned sexual content and "female presenting nipples". I also don't understand why banks care about this - I mean they must have lots of unsavoury business customers. Seems weird to care too much about porn.
They're all terrified of child pornography.
Don't European banks deal with lots of legal sex workers though? Brothels are legal in Germany, Spain, etc. Is it just because it's the internet?
Quote from: The Brain on August 19, 2021, 09:13:08 PM
In the UK, is it illegal to have done business with someone who later turns out to have been committing crimes?
Probably not, but it will become more muddled once you know about it, I presume.
Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2021, 08:50:52 PM
We're not actually talking about child pornography. We're talking about something which may get you swept up under child pornography laws through no guilty intent of your own, but that's a whole other problematic can of worms. The threat of being classified as aiding child abuse or terrorism is another way to deploy government censorship without calling it such, and it's already widely used in some countries.
We're talking about something that has the potential to be child pornography. How is Visa supposed to know if a girl is 17 or 18?
Perhaps Visa should limit (eliminate?) the ability of men to make purchases. Aren't men more likely to purchase porn? There is the potential that some of it could be child pornography. How is Visa suppose to know?
So it sounds like the sensible thing would have been just to put much stricter validation in place on the site.
Yet they aren't doing that and are instead killing their business which suggests it somehow isn't as sensible as it appears on the surface.
Odd.
:lol:
People noting that OnlyFans CEO (since 2019) was previously Director of Risk Management at Lehman's during the unpleasantness.
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2021, 02:51:58 AM
Perhaps Visa should limit (eliminate?) the ability of men to make purchases. Aren't men more likely to purchase porn? There is the potential that some of it could be child pornography. How is Visa suppose to know?
You make a good point!
But then some men might lie about their gender! How is Visa supposed to know? Best to just limit the ability of everybody to make purchases just to be safe.
Quote from: Tyr on August 20, 2021, 03:22:18 AM
So it sounds like the sensible thing would have been just to put much stricter validation in place on the site.
Yet they aren't doing that and are instead killing their business which suggests it somehow isn't as sensible as it appears on the surface.
Odd.
That sounds like a lot of work though :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2021, 10:52:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 20, 2021, 02:51:58 AM
Perhaps Visa should limit (eliminate?) the ability of men to make purchases. Aren't men more likely to purchase porn? There is the potential that some of it could be child pornography. How is Visa suppose to know?
You make a good point!
But then some men might lie about their gender! How is Visa supposed to know? Best to just limit the ability of everybody to make purchases just to be safe.
Well thought out. :cheers:
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2021, 10:52:59 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 20, 2021, 03:22:18 AM
So it sounds like the sensible thing would have been just to put much stricter validation in place on the site.
Yet they aren't doing that and are instead killing their business which suggests it somehow isn't as sensible as it appears on the surface.
Odd.
That sounds like a lot of work though :hmm:
Or it sounds like something that they would have thought of, and only rejected because it was impossible (as Tyr implies).
Yeah, I don't think OnlyFans is under any illusions about the primary source of their revenue - porn and live sex content. I expect they'd happily take any option that allowed them to continue making money from sex-workers.
Quote from: grumbler on August 20, 2021, 11:25:17 AM
Or it sounds like something that they would have thought of, and only rejected because it was impossible (as Tyr implies).
Ok well how can this be? How can it be impossible to determine a completely objective measurable quality with tons of supporting public records? While is it more preferable to an things on impossible to define quality like "sexually explicit"? It strikes me that one is much easier to police if you want to block child porn than the other. It seems like much more sexual child material would slide through on an arbitrary bullshit standard than a straight-forward objective one.
I guess the concept that vague and arbitrary and impossible to strictly define standards being better for people than straightforward comprehensible objective ones is a hard one for me to grasp.
If a noticeable number of the people on the site are underage, it doesn't seem hard to imagine a future courtroom where underage victims are suing visa and mastercard as facilitators of a business with a significant criminal component, or of course the site itself.
Would a jury side be more likely to side with visa/mastercard/onlyfans, or the victims?
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 20, 2021, 08:23:38 AM
:lol:
People noting that OnlyFans CEO (since 2019) was previously Director of Risk Management at Lehman's during the unpleasantness.
Seems like he knows his stuff. He presumably got paid a fortune at Lehman's, and managed risk well enough to become a CEO of a rather prominent company, where he likely gets another fortune.
Realistically, if he called shenanigans at Lehman's prior to 2008, that probably would have ended his career. Unlikely he would have survived Lehman's as a director of risk management by calling BS on the strategy pursued by the CEO and Board.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 20, 2021, 11:42:51 AM
If a noticeable number of the people on the site are underage, it doesn't seem hard to imagine a future courtroom where underage victims are suing visa and mastercard as facilitators of a business with a significant criminal component, or of course the site itself.
Would a jury side be more likely to side with visa/mastercard/onlyfans, or the victims?
I am pretty sure there is underage sex shit on every single video hosting site on the internet, who just manage to skirt under the letter of the law all the time. Now granted I don't know that but there is plenty of pretty sexual content on those platforms. So is it better to have arbitrary sex guidelines you cannot enforce or age guidelines you cannot enforce?
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2021, 10:52:59 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 20, 2021, 03:22:18 AM
So it sounds like the sensible thing would have been just to put much stricter validation in place on the site.
Yet they aren't doing that and are instead killing their business which suggests it somehow isn't as sensible as it appears on the surface.
Odd.
That sounds like a lot of work though :hmm:
And it's slightly different but the actual work of content moderation is pretty grim:
https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/
I think they can use software against known child abuse images, but it won't recognise images it doesnt know so the ones that are flagged/reported etc need to be vieed by actual people.
Obviously, the only way to solve this problem is to have a Department of Sex, and make all sex-workers become federal employees.
Socialized sex is surely a vote winner.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 20, 2021, 12:39:13 PM
Obviously, the only way to solve this problem is to have a Department of Sex, and make all sex-workers become federal employees.
Socialized sex is surely a vote winner.
Hell if the Feds took a cut we could eliminate the national debt in no time.
Onlyfans.gov :hmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2021, 05:32:48 PM
I'm always surprised when businesses decide they don't want to make money any more. It's a bit like when Tumblr banned sexual content and "female presenting nipples". I also don't understand why banks care about this - I mean they must have lots of unsavoury business customers. Seems weird to care too much about porn.
If I had the capital, I'd start my own credit card company that catered to pornography users and cyber hookers.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 20, 2021, 12:39:13 PM
Obviously, the only way to solve this problem is to have a Department of Sex, and make all sex-workers become federal employees.
Socialized sex is surely a vote winner.
"Cultural Marxists want to socialize your bedroom just like they want to socialize medicine!"
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 20, 2021, 12:06:45 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2021, 10:52:59 AM
Quote from: Tyr on August 20, 2021, 03:22:18 AM
So it sounds like the sensible thing would have been just to put much stricter validation in place on the site.
Yet they aren't doing that and are instead killing their business which suggests it somehow isn't as sensible as it appears on the surface.
Odd.
That sounds like a lot of work though :hmm:
And it's slightly different but the actual work of content moderation is pretty grim:
https://www.wired.com/2014/10/content-moderation/
I think they can use software against known child abuse images, but it won't recognise images it doesnt know so the ones that are flagged/reported etc need to be vieed by actual people.
I've never used only fans so could be way off here (mostly basing what I know on an article from a few weeks back about normal people turning to it and making good money), but surely it's a bit different to Facebook et al.
You don't have account creation as a free for all and then anyone can upload anyrhing. You have consumer accounts, who don't upload anything, and provider accounts, who produce and sell the content.
It seems very strange to me that they couldn't demand full ID checks for the providers- really rigorous stuff that puts many off. That done it should be pretty easy to prosecute anyone uploading child porn-or at the least uncover a case of identity theft.
As I said obviously they're not idiots so they would have considered all this and decided against it. But really strange that it came down on this side. I really do wonder what were the big blockers.
Quote from: Tyr on August 20, 2021, 03:22:18 AM
So it sounds like the sensible thing would have been just to put much stricter validation in place on the site.
Yet they aren't doing that and are instead killing their business which suggests it somehow isn't as sensible as it appears on the surface.
Odd.
they did, but a few got in the cracks. Again, we are very far from a Pornhub situation.
On Pornhub all kinds of randos post porn, not just the creators.
Quote from: Tyr on August 20, 2021, 04:28:16 PMI've never used only fans so could be way off here (mostly basing what I know on an article from a few weeks back about normal people turning to it and making good money), but surely it's a bit different to Facebook et al.
You don't have account creation as a free for all and then anyone can upload anyrhing. You have consumer accounts, who don't upload anything, and provider accounts, who produce and sell the content.
It seems very strange to me that they couldn't demand full ID checks for the providers- really rigorous stuff that puts many off. That done it should be pretty easy to prosecute anyone uploading child porn-or at the least uncover a case of identity theft.
As I said obviously they're not idiots so they would have considered all this and decided against it. But really strange that it came down on this side. I really do wonder what were the big blockers.
Yeah I get that - but isn't the concern about people using accounts to share it?
Although as you say it does sound safer than, say Pornhub, or something where anyone can upload it because it's always someone identifiable who's uploading things?
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2021, 06:16:28 PM
On Pornhub all kinds of randos post porn, not just the creators.
Though I think that's changed now.
A lot of the content on PornHub is videos of webcam performers surreptitiously filmed by their customers, which i think is very underhanded.
So this investigation - published yesterday but clearly underway for a while - feels like the context for this decision:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58255865
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2021, 07:12:22 PM
A lot of the content on PornHub is videos of webcam performers surreptitiously filmed by their customers, which i think is very underhanded.
Is that still the case? I haven't been on it in a while but I thought that after the reports about it back in december or so, PH cleaned up their entire data base and then only allow "verified Users" to post stuff now. I imagine they may not accept third-party webcam girls, unless their ages can be verified.
Again, I'm not really sure.
Quote from: Josephus on August 21, 2021, 06:03:17 AM
Is that still the case? I haven't been on it in a while but I thought that after the reports about it back in december or so, PH cleaned up their entire data base and then only allow "verified Users" to post stuff now. I imagine they may not accept third-party webcam girls, unless their ages can be verified.
Again, I'm not really sure.
I made the assumption based on the facts that a) it can be done by customers, and b) why would the performers give it away for free?, but I don't know for a fact it's customer bootlegs.
Quote from: Josephus on August 20, 2021, 01:52:05 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 19, 2021, 05:32:48 PM
I'm always surprised when businesses decide they don't want to make money any more. It's a bit like when Tumblr banned sexual content and "female presenting nipples". I also don't understand why banks care about this - I mean they must have lots of unsavoury business customers. Seems weird to care too much about porn.
If I had the capital, I'd start my own credit card company that catered to pornography users and cyber hookers.
that's not the problem. Credit cards are widespread: I can use Master Card/Visa/Amex to pay for grocery, beer, restaurant, hotel, train, and porn. If you have PornPay (tm) card in your wallet that can only be used to pay for porn shopping, it has no real use compared to MasterCard. And it already exists with various cryptocurrencies. Which are harder to trace than credit cards registered in your name and can be used for illicit activites as well.
It's groups like the National Center on Sexual Exploitation pushing a right wing fundamentalist Christian agenda. They found that "child porn" is their in to destroy anything they disagree with and no one has the courage to call them on their blatant lies, disinformation, and severely mangled "facts" because to do so would then be used to paint their opposition as being "pro-child porn". The National Center on Sexual Exploitation probably doesn't give any more of a damn about ending child porn than qanon members do/did in their weird crusades to discredit actual efforts to work against and dismantle the awful practice. They're too busy wholecloth inventing conspiracies and lies to push their own agenda under the cover of being against child porn.
Is there also a possibility that laws against trafficking are coming into play here as well? After all, I would imagine that at least a number of women with OnlyFans sites are escorting, and there's a lot things in that industry that would meet the current definition of human trafficking.
Quote from: Neil on August 22, 2021, 04:30:01 PM
Is there also a possibility that laws against trafficking are coming into play here as well? After all, I would imagine that at least a number of women with OnlyFans sites are escorting, and there's a lot things in that industry that would meet the current definition of human trafficking.
I'm sure that's part of it. Though why pick on Onlyfans.
A lot of those webcam sites take credit cards (I hear), and I'm convinced a lot of those girls would meet that definiton as well.
Quote from: Josephus on August 22, 2021, 06:10:30 PM
I'm sure that's part of it. Though why pick on Onlyfans.
A lot of those webcam sites take credit cards (I hear), and I'm convinced a lot of those girls would meet that definiton as well.
I'm not sure that it is a matter of "pick on Onlyfans" so much as this was the low-hanging fruit.
So...the challenge then is how do we make sure there's no pimping going on?
I can think of super intrusive stuff like demanding copies of bank statements, but even that wouldn't be perfect and is a pretty extreme demand.
I also wonder how much of their income comes from really small niche people doing it as a side gig with a few hundred followers vs. the big hitters who packed in their career and are living large off the back of this.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 20, 2021, 12:39:13 PM
Obviously, the only way to solve this problem is to have a Department of Sex, and make all sex-workers become federal employees.
Socialized sex is surely a vote winner.
(https://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/field/image/solon.jpg)
Looks like they reversed their decision.
https://www.avclub.com/onlyfans-realizes-it-fucked-up-will-not-ban-porn-anymo-1847554159
Last week, OnlyFans made the very questionable move to ban users from uploading "any sexually explicit content." The new rule was supposed to start on October 1. It made no sense; barely anyone uses OnlyFans for anything other than porn. And for sex workers who used the service, OnlyFans provided financial security, so the decision felt like slap in the face to those who've made the platform so successful in the first place. It was also one of the few safe spaces where sex workers could share whatever content they wanted and set their own prices for a subscription.
After receiving immense backlash, the site reversed its decision. OnlyFans shared a statement on social media on Wednesday morning, that reads:
Thank you to everyone for making your voices heard. We have secured assurances necessary to support our diverse creator community and have suspended the planned October 1 policy change. OnlyFans stands for inclusion and we will continue to provide a home for all creators. An official communication to creators will be emailed shortly.
The Onion has an article on this:
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theonion.com/onlyfans-ceo-admits-decision-to-ban-pornography-was-mad-1847526581/amp
Quote from: Josephus on August 25, 2021, 09:33:30 AM
Looks like they reversed their decision.
https://www.avclub.com/onlyfans-realizes-it-fucked-up-will-not-ban-porn-anymo-1847554159
Last week, OnlyFans made the very questionable move to ban users from uploading "any sexually explicit content." The new rule was supposed to start on October 1. It made no sense; barely anyone uses OnlyFans for anything other than porn. And for sex workers who used the service, OnlyFans provided financial security, so the decision felt like slap in the face to those who've made the platform so successful in the first place. It was also one of the few safe spaces where sex workers could share whatever content they wanted and set their own prices for a subscription.
After receiving immense backlash, the site reversed its decision. OnlyFans shared a statement on social media on Wednesday morning, that reads:
Thank you to everyone for making your voices heard. We have secured assurances necessary to support our diverse creator community and have suspended the planned October 1 policy change. OnlyFans stands for inclusion and we will continue to provide a home for all creators. An official communication to creators will be emailed shortly.
Does it say how they will deal with CC companies not processing payments for them anymore?
Good. I felt like onlyfans was a very positive step in how sex work um...worked. I feel like having the performers have easy access to the consumer and be able to personally profit was excellent.
I hope that onlyfans finds more effective ways of keeping underage people off the site.
its the porn version of new coke. CEO just made themselves a nice bonus
Quote from: HVC on August 25, 2021, 11:17:17 AM
its the porn version of new coke. CEO just made themselves a nice bonus
Speaking of which, New Coke Zero also sucks.
Quote from: Malthus on August 25, 2021, 10:47:26 AM
The Onion has an article on this:
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theonion.com/onlyfans-ceo-admits-decision-to-ban-pornography-was-mad-1847526581/amp
:D :D :D
I do wonder whether the damage is done and people on there are already looking for alternatives/startups are more encouraged and funded to try and do the same thing better.