Regardless of the CSAM issue, regardless of the "revenge porn" issue, even for fully legitimate performers these publishers such as OnlyFans and Pornhub are acting as digital pimps skimming billions of dollars from the value provided by their users. We should be promoting FOSS alternatives that allow performers to truly own their own content and control who profits from it. Not crying over the takedown of another walled garden big tech aggregator. They are no different than the sleazy strip club owner who takes a cut of his dancer's tips.
A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
101–110 of 457 posts
Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
#102Earlier 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 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…
The question is, is criminal regulation better than legal regulation? Are sexually trafficked victims truly helped when this work is criminalized rather than heavily regulated ?
To me it’s like how some states try to combat Teen pregnancy and abortion by teaching abstinence instead of proper health education and provide accessible resources.
Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
#103Seen 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…
All it took was one useful billionaire...
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1s9f698vwhczr...
Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
#104Seen 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....
The issue is that EU and Australia have regulated interchange fees for MasterCard/Visa, costing them gobs of money and value.
The US doesn’t need to fine or litigate them if they want to penalize them heavily, they can just pass a “consumer protection bill” (so Walmart and others can pay all credit card payments).
Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
#105Earlier 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 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…
Companies can barely be expected to protect your personal data.
Now imagine you’re a cam girl who has provided your drivers license picture to a website and now it has leaked and thousands of thirsty lonely men have your home address.
This isn’t even a made up scenario, it has happened with multiple cam sites.
Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
#106Seen 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 traf…
You say "it's what happened here" and "But this particular one, because of the seriousness of the allegation combined with its plausibility, did in a big way" - but you haven't actually provided any evidence for it, just repeated assertions that it's true.
Can you show anything aside from just speculation?
Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most Christians I know are against legislating morality because that could result in the government being involved in the church.
Most Christians I know are way more myopic than that.
There are many Christians, and the people you know are not an adequate random sample for statistical inference in general.
Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of any legal safeguard you might legislate into place, it's radioactive PR to be associated in any way with sex trafficking and child porn.
I'm not sure it is. When people hear "PornHub is disseminating / profiting off revenge porn", does anyone think "shame on their payment processors"? I think the outrage is directed at the operators of the websites themselves.
[deleted]
Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
#109Seen 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…
All it took was one useful billionaire... https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1s9f698vwhczr...
Insane.
Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
#110Seen 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]