Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 457 posts

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

#91

Post by wruza »

dkdk8283 wrote: post #77
pcbro141 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Think of it the other way around. Sex workers can finally go “legit” via OF and can stop fucking random people.

Most of them can’t do nearly as much as of when fucking people full time, and most of that part can’t even make a living on OF. It is unlikely “the other way around”, considering insights available out there.

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

#92

Post by cblconfederate »

Looking forward to when (aptly-named) MasterCard will ban those other networks that put young girls often less than 13 in a behavioral treadmill of entertaining other users with their photos for pithy "likes" that don't even translate to monetary rewards. Should I hold my breath?

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

#94

Post by rendall »

I've never heard a good argument against prostitution. The arguments that I hear are against trafficking, rape, child molestation; which are all non-sequiturs: true and valid statements that do not support the argument itself.

Can anyone here argue against prostitution per se? I'll listen.

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

#95

Post by relax88 »

ImprobableTruth wrote: post #88
BarryMilo wrote: post #50

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.

>do we have a right to sacrifice one population to protect another? You're doing that one way or the other. The question is merely which one should be protected and which sacrificed.

I think it’s more about whether shutting down adult content on sites like OnlyFans actually does anything to reduce sex trafficking or abuse.

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

#96

Post by marcus_holmes »

dijit wrote: post #79
MBCook wrote: post #57

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

The content they’re talking about is reprehensible. (Beastiality, incest, prostitution) but I’m wary of things being labelled “illegal” since in the UK, facesitting, spanking and “water sports” are illegal. 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.

Obscenity is famously subjective:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

- http://cbldf.org/about-us/case-files/obscenity-case-files/ob...

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

#97

Post by soupbowl »

retrac wrote: post #39
fxtentacle wrote: post #6

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."

It's more complex than that. For one thing the current porn industry does have some ethical issues. Even people not opposed to pornography per se have issues. But beyond that, the zealously anti-porn crowd isn't just Christians. It's something of an unholy alliance -- you have more than a few ultra-woke, a smattering of the Q crowd type, and of course the good ol' fashioned core of Catholic and Baptist types. Plus no…

I love that every time Christianity is brought up on HN someone throws out the Q crowd. I have chatted with a number of Q people and they were not Christians and non of them were for restricting porn, that is out of their 'scope'.

Q on your side is the antifa of the other side, just a name for an nondescript group you disagree with.

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

#98

Post by watwut »

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…

I was looking at it and it honestly does not seem to me so well founded. The human trafficking's claims are often ridiculously inflated. Or simply every prostitute is counted as trafficking victim. The claims are made, articles written and then it all dies as no charges are dropped. On more crazy side, humans are supposed to be trafficked in cupboards and what not.

And those claims are in fact used to crack down on prostitution and sex work in general - like a backpage crackdown.

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

#99

Post by crazygringo »

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…

Honestly, in this particular case huge companies did make changes on the basis of this newspaper column. It's not common, but it's what happened here.

It was an incredibly visible and influential accusation that seemingly came out of nowhere from arguably the most prestigious newspaper in the country, and legitimate businesses like PornHub and MasterCard are terrified of brand association with child porn and sex trafficking -- if those stuck, it's corporate suicide.

You're right that most opinion pieces don't make a shred of difference. But this particular one, because of the seriousness of the allegation combined with its plausibility, did in a big way.

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

#100

Post by Sebb767 »

dkdk8283 wrote: post #77
pcbro141 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Think of it the other way around. Sex workers can finally go “legit” via OF and can stop fucking random people.

On the street, sex workers compete with the local availability and even the most expensive workers are limited by time alone. On the internet, the have (had?) to compete with the prettiest and best people in the business and these people can have far more customers. So I honestly doubt that there is much mobility between these two jobs.
Post reply on HN