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

241–250 of 457 posts

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

#241

Post by WhompingWindows »

rendall wrote: post #94

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.

"I've never heard a good argument against injecting heroin. The arguments that I hear are against overdose, shared needles leading to infectious disease, and destitution and poverty; which are all non-sequiturs."

You've completely removed all the main "negatives" of prostitution, saying those aren't "real arguments."

While it's possible that heroin injection and prostitution may be done in a safe and clean way, the reality is extremely far from that in both cases.

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

#242

Post by ditonal »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #233
justinator wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Especially since their job is to ask questions. That's a stretch. What else will you have us believe? That the New York Times intends to be a politically neutral voice of reason? No, sir. Maybe in the 1950s, maybe before the Internet, in those halcyon days when newspapers had a good slice of the nation's ad money and lots of competitors and earned money by attracting from a broad swath of readers to earn money from…

Thanks for saying the hard things others are afraid of saying. It’s difficult to watch gems of American journalism flushes down the toilet in the name of activism such as the NYTimes. You’re right, its not a financial conspiracy, it’s an ideological one. Journalistic standards used to be about getting facts straight. Now it’s about narrative building.

The NYTimes fired an editor for publishing an opinion piece by a sitting US Congress person because that opinion upset people. And this is supposed to be the crown jewel of journalism and has turned into Huffington Post. Your downvotes and others defending modern “journalists” are delusional.

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

#243

Post by atlasunshrugged »

This is off topic, but this actually does seem like one of the few areas where crypto could make a difference. Why hasn't there been a good implementation of an onlyfans style platform that lets someone transfer funds direct from a linked coinbase account or something instead of depending on a Mastercard/Visa for payment processing?

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

#244

Post by [deleted] »

vbezhenar wrote: post #139
rendall wrote: post #94

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.

A generic argument: prostitution allows woman without any skills to earn plenty of money which might convince women do go this way even if they don't really enjoy it. The same argument could be made about IT. Prostitutes sell their private parts, programmers sell their brains.

[deleted]

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

#245

Post by WillPostForFood »

ehsankia wrote: post #208
_fat_santa wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Are they anti-semitic, or is it just ad hominem?

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

#246

Post by aaron_m04 »

prestigious wrote: post #183

Feels like switching to crypto payments would be far more likely to keep the site alive than whatever it is they are planning on doing.

Isn't it pretty difficult to have recurring payments with crypto, without some payment processor in the middle?

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

#247

Post by rkk3 »

afavour wrote: post #225
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…

Let's look at this from the reverse angle: Did PornHub have revenge porn, child trafficking, etc. on the site? Yes. The twitter thread concedes this point. So this isn't "just a hit piece with unverified out of context accusations". Is that fair game to report on? I'd certainly say it is. If you're going to publish a potentially explosive article about something, is it better or worse to reach out to sponsors, partne…

> Did PornHub have revenge porn, child trafficking, etc. on the site? Yes.

Does Facebook have revenge porn, child trafficking, etc. on the site? Yes.

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

#248

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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…

> Also I think you may have to look and see how much journalists make. To be so entrenched in a mass conspiracy that takes down whole networks of industry, I’d negotiate a better salary then the equivalent of $20/hour.

This is like arguing that hooligans engaged in vandalism are virtuous because they're not millionaires.

You're failing to distinguish between journalists publishing a balanced truthful article in which the truth makes someone look bad, vs. "nice business you've got there, shame if someone were to publish a hit piece in a major media outlet."

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

#249

Post by nindalf »

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…

> In my experience, huge companies do not make changes like this purely on the basis of newspaper columns.

You'd think, but no. In my experience working at a large tech company, executives cared a lot about what the New York Times in particular thought. A piece published by them would have immediate attention from those executives, and it'd be our problem to respond, even if the original article wasn't well founded. Once I figured out how much leadership cared about NYT, I even justified one engineering decision based on "what would NYT say". And it worked.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that MasterCard cares so much about what the NYT prints.

> Political pressure? Regulatory pressure?

You're on the right track. If you think (correctly IMO) that politicians and regulators read NYT, then pressure from these groups is going to come soon after the NYT piece is published. Best take action before that happens.

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

#250

Post by stefantalpalaru »

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…

> Political pressure?

Probably. Hunter Biden had a PornHub account where he uploaded incest porn with his underage niece: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/huge-breaking-exclu...

Post reply on HN