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

201–210 of 457 posts

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

#201

Post by giantrobot »

pcbro141 wrote: post #65
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.

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…

If a girl goes from Instagram to OnlyFans willingly and is getting paid...why should anyone judge her or care? How is that any different from her making videos about video games or revising books and making money?

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

#202

Post by [deleted] »

justinator wrote: post #192
surge wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That’s quite the axe to grind against journalists. Especially since their job is to ask questions. To think they’re a part of this mass conspiracy to take powerful entities down is laughable. My partner, a journalist, has gotten death threats just by being at peaceful protests against certain groups that have wealth and pull in the community - just because members of that org were certain the journalist was the main…

[deleted]

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

#203

Post by ballenf »

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…

I'd never heard of Exodus Cry mentioned in the thread, so looked at their website. They seem to have made themselves a target of accusations from Pornhub as a result of the NYT article. Here is their statement on the site that addresses some of the things presented as fact in the Twitter thread:

https://exoduscry.com/downloads/Statement-of-Inclusion.pdf

I'm sure there's much more to the story, but thought it worth at least looking at the vision, etc. from this company given the accusations made against them.

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

#204

Post by partido3619463 »

gammarator wrote: post #89
neogodless wrote: post #2

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1428584131835748359.html

Thanks. Twitter has apparently taken a page from Reddit’s playbook and won’t let me view the whole thread on mobile without downloading their app.

Switch to any other mobile browser (even on iOS) and the prompt goes away.

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

#205

Post by pc86 »

antattack wrote: post #189
yarcob wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If a journalist asking uncomfortable questions about your business endangers your business, then the problem is not the journalist, the problem is your business. If a journalist blows a story out of proportion, then usually nothing happens and the story is forgotten after a few months. But in the porn hub story, the uncomfortable truth is that there was a lot of involuntary porn on the platform. The NYT story jus…

"If a journalist blows a story out of proportion, then usually nothing happens and the story is forgotten after a few months." This heavily depends on the audience. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus

What exactly is the dog whistle here?

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

#206

Post by masklinn »

aerosmile wrote: post #151
masklinn wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you get from 'opinion piece in a newspaper' to 'gigantic transnational financial infrastructure company changes its rules'? In my experience, huge companies do not make changes like this purely on the basis of newspaper columns. The amounts are minor as far as payment processors are concerned, but those payment processors want to avoid governments getting up their grill. By acting "proactively" on anything w…

Very insightful comment. When you run a gazillion dollar company, you don't care about a billion here or there from porn sites, you care about not losing your gazillion dollar business. There are plenty of examples where CEOs were not conservative enough and it cost them big time - just look at Facebook's loosey goosey approach to political advertising, which in the end turned the entire country against them. From a…

> From a business perspective, it's better to take a small financial hit but continue to run your business without any additional regulatory oversight.

Indeed, staying on the down low and out of regulator minds (and crosshairs) is one of those "cost of doing business" things older companies do.

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

#207

Post by YetAnotherNick »

masklinn wrote: post #61
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…

> How do you get from 'opinion piece in a newspaper' to 'gigantic transnational financial infrastructure company changes its rules'? In my experience, huge companies do not make changes like this purely on the basis of newspaper columns. The amounts are minor as far as payment processors are concerned, but those payment processors want to avoid governments getting up their grill. By acting "proactively" on anything w…

> The amounts are minor as far as payment processors are concerned, but those payment processors want to avoid governments getting up their grill.

The actual profit in this specific case might be small but there are lot of money in things related to adult content. They are all now looking for a trustworthy processor. Also even for non adult content lot of people will prefer having payment processing partner who will not kick you out based on some newspaper image. There are lot of grey area in most of the business, specially the biggest ones.

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

#208

Post by ehsankia »

_fat_santa wrote: post #51
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.

The tweet that comes right after is much more relevant imo:

> One of the primary sources in Kristof’s article is Traffickinghub founder Laila Mickelwait. She also works for the group Exodus Cry, a Christian group that is among other things anti-sex, anti-homosexuality and, naturally, anti-semitic.

While the article itself was a spark, this group has been lobbying for years and pushing from every imaginable direction, including lobbying payment processors and suing companies left and right. So yes, the article was just one tiny piece of the puzzle, but Exodus Cry is the real puppet master.

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

#209

Post by dragonwriter »

throw3849 wrote: post #195

Every US porn site needs to keep record of models, release forms etc.. This has been problem for a long time, for example old VHS tapes do not usually comply. OnlyFans and other sites were in violation of these rules for very long time. Edit: fix typo

> OnlyFans and other sites very in violation of these rules for very long time.

I think the big problem is actually with fairly recent changes in how the rules are applied (and maybe to the rules themselves, not just application) to intermediate distributors between the producer and the consumer which has caused existing sites to have compliance issues.

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

#210

Post by throwawayboise »

relax88 wrote: post #142
neaanopri wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case why can't OF impose these requirements on their creators?

Presumably because of the costs of verification and record keeping. A single adult video studio might have a maximum of a few hundred people who they have to keep records for. Those people are paid per shoot, and the content is owned by the studio. There is a high ratio of revenue to number of people whose records must be kept. On OnlyFans, they have a huge amount of people producing a small volume of content and mak…

Exactly. It would change OnlyFans from an almost no-overhead (just servers and storage) business to one that would need a huge increase in staff (payroll, offices/equipment, benefits, etc) to do the verification reviews, as well as a bigger HR deparment to handle the recruitment and hiring of these people. Their overhead costs would explode.
Post reply on HN