A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#51

Post by _fat_santa » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 2:09 PM UTC

twic wrote: post #29

Seen this thread going around, but it seems like it skips over the important bit. > So why the rule changes? Because last December the New York Times published an opinion piece by Nick Kristof caller “The Children of Pornhub” that accused the site and its parent company of profiting off revenge porn, child porn and sex trafficking. How do you get from 'opinion piece in a newspaper' to 'gigantic transnational financia…

You could say that the NYT piece was the spark that eventually led to the rule change. I doubt someone read the column and made the rule change immediately, but it probably sparked dialog within MasterCard that eventually led to the rule change.

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#52

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 2:10 PM UTC

twic wrote: post #29

Seen this thread going around, but it seems like it skips over the important bit. > So why the rule changes? Because last December the New York Times published an opinion piece by Nick Kristof caller “The Children of Pornhub” that accused the site and its parent company of profiting off revenge porn, child porn and sex trafficking. How do you get from 'opinion piece in a newspaper' to 'gigantic transnational financia…

[deleted]

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#53

Post by EForEndeavour » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 2:12 PM UTC

busymom0 wrote: post #7

This might be a good time to discuss whether payment processors should have the ability to restrict legal trades (CP is a few bad apples). This applies to things like sex work and porn but also censorship of political views. I think it's stupid to pay for porn when there's so much available for free but who am I to judge what people do with their money and body as long as it's consensual adults? Plus if we are to enj…

> I think it's stupid to pay for porn when there's so much available for free

> if we are to enjoy the free stuff, we also gotta make sure the content creators get paid

What do you mean by "paying for porn" versus "make sure the content creators get paid"? Do you mean pay content creators as directly as possible, rather than paying distribution/publication platforms?

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#54

Post by Miner49er » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 2:12 PM UTC

So the timing of this, and the Apple's CSAM is interesting. Are companies facing a legal liability or afraid of facing one in the future? Are they worried that they could potentially be liable under FOSTA-SESTA?

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#55

Post by _fat_santa » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 2:12 PM UTC

retrac wrote: post #49

after_care wrote: post #11

How far away is crypto from being a viable alternative payment processor? The problems I see are the translation layer between fiat and crypto, the fluctuation of value of tokens, the long confirmation process of many tokens, the environmental impact, and the physical infrastructure (atms, etc). Each individual problems seems solvable, and it would be a significant historical event if banking was moved to these decen…

Volatility and exchange with fiat are the main issues. In terms of simply effecting a payment Bitcoin has worked since launch (aside from a few times when transaction fees got pretty silly). The scaling problem can at least temporarily gotten around with multiple currencies. (Which seems to have been adopted in practice when Bitcoin hit its txn soft cap a while back.) IMO here in Canada it's near-feasible. Most peopl…

Open Question. Why don't more places accept stablecoin like USDC and USDT? The number of places that accept crypto is exceedingly low but even those that do usually only accept BTC. I wonder why stablecoins aren't used more for these sorts of transactions? Is it just that BTC is the most well known? Or are the underlying technical differences that prevent that from happening.

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#56

Post by thendrill » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 2:13 PM UTC

BarryMilo wrote: post #50

zozbot234 wrote: post #36

The concern that various kinds of legal sex work might be a de-facto haven for human trafficking is at least many decades old, does not solely or even mainly originate from people identifying as Christians, and seems to have a pretty solid factual basis - at the very least, there is a consensus on the broad argument if not the details. The Twitter thread does not even attempt to fairly acknowledge these facts. Very s…

Is it worth continuing to push sex workers into illegality, thereby putting them in danger? Put another way, do we have a right to sacrifice one population to protect another? Allow me to doubt it.

Problem is that sex work is a very wierd exempt from current social norms. We do not like meritocracy but we do agree that hot young women can make a lot of money just because they were born this way.

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#57

Post by MBCook » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 2:14 PM UTC

There was also a recent BBC investigation into OnlyFans that found they constantly bent their rules for popular content makers and had a real problem with sub-18 people on the platform.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58255865

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#58

Post by ajsnigrutin » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 2:15 PM UTC

Net... uhm.. payment-processors-neutrality!

I have no idea why payment processors get to choose and pick what they want to process and what they don't.

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#59

Post by zozbot234 » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 2:15 PM UTC

BarryMilo wrote: post #50

zozbot234 wrote: post #36

The concern that various kinds of legal sex work might be a de-facto haven for human trafficking is at least many decades old, does not solely or even mainly originate from people identifying as Christians, and seems to have a pretty solid factual basis - at the very least, there is a consensus on the broad argument if not the details. The Twitter thread does not even attempt to fairly acknowledge these facts. Very s…

Is it worth continuing to push sex workers into illegality, thereby putting them in danger? Put another way, do we have a right to sacrifice one population to protect another? Allow me to doubt it.

> Is it worth continuing to push sex workers into illegality

If that's the price to pay in order to rescue vulnerable people who are being exploited and trafficked, very much so. Sex work is a decadent luxury at best; human freedom and agency are worth so much more.

> thereby putting them in danger?

There's no proof that legitimate sex workers are being "put in danger". They might be de-facto forbidden from engaging in that line of work, but there's a solid rationale for such a policy; it might just be the best we can do given our broader circumstances.

Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

#60

Post by cm277 » Fri, Aug 20, 2021, 2:16 PM UTC

twic wrote: post #29

Seen this thread going around, but it seems like it skips over the important bit. > So why the rule changes? Because last December the New York Times published an opinion piece by Nick Kristof caller “The Children of Pornhub” that accused the site and its parent company of profiting off revenge porn, child porn and sex trafficking. How do you get from 'opinion piece in a newspaper' to 'gigantic transnational financia…

Genuine question: are the payment processors legally exposed because of the purpose of transactions going on in their system? If so, this seems to be the main problem --I mean if social media platforms can absolve responsibility for content, Mastercard/Visa absolutely should as well....