71–80 of 457 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no room for discussion. Your civil liberties are being eroded with this measure.
Don't say "there is no room for discussion" on a discussion forum, it's obnoxious.
The world really needs an alternative to these tweet serials. They're extremely annoying to read.
Part of the advantage to tweet threads like this is that other users can reply directly to any one of the n tweets in the thread, rather than commenting on the thread as a whole. Agreed that it can be clunky to read depending on the platform, but there's a reason lots of prominent personalities and bloggers still use them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_styl...
Too bad the inline reply style got lost in email culture, but it's good to know it's alive and well on Twitter!
I believe his argumentation that this is a push by Christian organizations might be correct, but I believe he's deluded in that he appears to think that he's speaking for the majority. "65% of adults in the United States identified themselves as Christians."
Pornhub was actually peddling in CSAM and revenge porn, and rape being sold to consumers. They are cracking down on payments, because of the reputation risk, and plain old morality. This has the risk of pushing some sex-workers into less safe avenues. We can debate this - and there is a healthy debate about that.
But in modern media, you don't just need facts to make a opinion, a group that is a outgroup that you can attack is also necessary. Hence this article.
hence this article.
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.
If you are going to be a legal dualolopy, then you can't cut off payments like you can't cut off power or water.
Personally I breaking thei anti-trust behavior entirely, so people have options.
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…
I agree that it is not just the Christian right who has engaged in this, though. Famously, boxer Jack Johnson was charged for human trafficking for driving his girlfriend across the border. Their consensual relationship fell into the “immoral” bucket by the standards of the time because it was interracial.
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…
The same newspaper ran similar tactics against YouTube which resulted in colossal changes. These kinds of stories have an enormous impact, magnified I think by company's (in the case of YouTube, advertisers, in the case of OF, payment providers and investors) being terrified of snowballing bad PR in social media.
It's strange but in the modern world yes, 'old media' can have transformative impact on corporations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 really the case that most OnlyFans girls would turn to more dangerous things like prostitution? It kinda feels like OnlyFans has somewhat normalized/popularized young women going from Instagram 'influencer' (sometimes starting underage unfortunately, HS kids use it) to pornstar, for young women who otherwise probably wouldn't have entered the world of porn if it weren't for the fact that the hot Instagram girl…
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
So it’s easy to cite 1 case of beastiality and later say there are “200,000 illegal articles” when 199,999 could be spanking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They expect VISA will follow suit.
Source? Or are you just assuming?