A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

I think those are young women, going from webcam and porn studios to their own indie production, receiving more money from their work and removing shady guys who organized porn studios both from production and their cut.

Everybody won there.

It's the same crap as the ad-pocalypse.

Journalists with an agenda use a disingenuous tactic, if they have a problem with a person or entity, they'll call up their sponsors, business partners, vendors, etc, and say "we're writing an article on X's platform which has been found to have (controversial material framed in a negative context), are we to believe that you're supportive and would your company care to comment." This leads to the company panicking, going completely defensive, and killing all contracts, services, and pulling sponsors or place of employment from the person whose being targeted in what is often just a hit piece with unverified out of context accusations. So yes, journalists, especially those that work for outlets like the NYT's can have someone's sponsors, money streams, etc pulled out from them by asking so called "innocent" questions in a passive aggressive way. They've done this numerous times not even giving those accused to respond, sometimes the article never even comes out. It's one of the abuses of power you can see in journalism today, where agenda driven journalism is used as a weapon to get someone removed from society, bank accounts closed, etc. Some targets are too big for it to work, or can lose a few sponsors, but they do it all the time.

It's said to objectify women. More specifically, the Johns are treating women's bodies as something that can be traded commercially. The more that is normalised, the more it damages all women - not just prostitutes.

If you don't think objectifying women harms them, then that's not a "good" argument, I guess.

FTR, I'm against laws controlling consensual sex. Not all harmful behaviour should be criminalised.

It was informative and then it started stuff like this:

> Almost the entire anti-trafficking movement is an Evangelical project to get liberal supporters to sign off on a laundry list of Christian anti-sex policies. It’s been one of their most successful propaganda projects. It’s also likely gotten a lot of sex workers killed.

I'm libertarian, do what you want with your body or money but know the risks. That said, someone could also argue that making it more difficult to sell your porn or get involved in the seedier parts of this PROBABLY stopped some people from ruining their lives, staying off drugs, etc.

Again, don't like either argument, but there are two "probably" sides to this.

This is just an opinion from a real world example:

I've done some stripping when I was young. I did it because my gf was doing it and was making a lot of money. This was the only way we could make good money without breaking the law.

I've met the most broken and scummy people there is during that time. It ultimately broke our 7 year relationship. You pay an emotional price for making easy money. You have to be very stable to be able to endure that kind of work over time as you deal with a lot of broken people doing very intimate work. Drugs are very accessible and an easy fix to deal with the emotional toll.

People who can work in this industry for more than a year and leave unhurt probably belong in the 1% IMO.