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

261–270 of 457 posts

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

#261

Post by squeaky-clean »

afavour wrote: post #236
squeaky-clean wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with the article overall, but it is very sensationalized. Statements like this > It is monetizing video compilations with titles like “Screaming Teen,” “Degraded Teen” and “Extreme Choking.” Look at a choking video and it may suggest also searching for “She Can’t Breathe.” imply Pornhub is going out of it's way to specifically monetize rape or child videos, when the truth is they monetize every singl…

This all seems extremely hand-wavey to me. > the bit about related suggestions sort of implies to a non-techie that Pornhub employees are generating these suggestions They are, in a sense. They're not actively doing it in person but the code they wrote is generating those suggestions. Changing the code is within their power, yet they don't. If the code processing payments accidentally started charging everyone $0 you…

> Why not fix the code that suggests rape videos?

None of those titles say rape or child in them, and the article already covered that they have a blacklist of search terms. Ever played a videogame with a censored wordlist for profanity? People will still find a way to call you a racial slur, even if it involves some really creative uses of text to get around the filter.

> Wouldn't it be better to just... not have that feature? Why isn't it an option to just turn it off?

Related searches in a search engine is a pretty core feature, and it's not like it prevents people from just coming up with related searches with their own mind and typing them in manually. And your statement sort of applies to every facet of Pornhub. Uploading user submitted videos can be actively harmful. Comments can be actively harmful.

Edit to respond to this bit:

> Changing the code is within their power, yet they don't.

I'm pretty certain it's not just taking search term and running it through a thesaurus or something like that. It likely correlates searches from users that make similar search terms. The code isn't really generating any suggestions, just aggregating correlated search terms. I don't have hard proof of this of course, but it's a very common implementation for related searches.

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

#262

Post by hulitu »

_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.

Or was paid by these people to justify the purge.

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

#263

Post by hocuspocus »

Scoundreller wrote: post #104
cm277 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

The interchange goes to the card issuer, not to the scheme. Visa and MasterCard fees are the smallest part of the overall fee charged by the payment processor. (That said it might be higher in the US, I don't know).

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

#264

Post by hulitu »

ehsankia wrote: post #215
vlunkr wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the first leap in logic, the second is this: > The new MasterCard rules are a direct result of this, which basically means an overwrought Christian anti-sex fever dream is now dictating sexual content online. That's right, the state of everything was "dictated" by a guy writing an article.

The article itself was also a side-effect, not the source. Exodus Cry has been lobbying everyone such as payment processors, rich donors, advertisers, as well as NYT (getting them to write the article). So article wasn't the source, it was just another piece in the path of Exodus Cry's rampage. They have a huge legal team and they've been attacking this from every imaginable angle.

So the article was paid and that in itself is no problem ?

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

#265

Post by thrower123 »

jrwoodruff wrote: post #240
icegreentea2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People with only outrage won't think about their payment processors. Those with outrage who think through their options to enact change will think of their payment processors, and direct group pressure on them.

I'm very skeptical that anyone would think through this scenario and arrive at boycotting an entire payment network. Not just PornHubs bank, or payment processor, but an entire credit card network. And of those that did, I doubt it would be a big enough group for Mastercard to even notice. Unless that 'someone' is a major institution like Bank of America, or the federal government.

It doesn't take many people to agitate, if they are sufficiently unpleasant and noisy and can't be easily written off as cranks.

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

#266

Post by colpabar »

bko wrote: post #260
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…

I'm surprised the post didn't mention Operation Choke Point, an Obama era regulation that put more restrictions on payment processing for certain categories. I think it's easy to point to "religious groups" and op-eds and not to the overall regulatory push into more aspects of the economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point

from the same article

> On August 17, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice, under the Trump Administration, announced that the Obama Administration's Operation Choke Point would officially end, stating that it was hurting legitimate businesses instead of preventing fraud as intended.

maybe Biden has done something?

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

#267

Post by hulitu »

sschueller wrote: post #213
Pet_Ant wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Cry “ Exodus Cry is a non-profit advocacy organization seeking the abolition of the legal commercial sex industry, including pornography, strip clubs and sex work, as well as illegal sex trafficking. The organization originally developed out of a weekly prayer group founded in 2007 by Benjamin Nolot, a filmmaker and member of the charismatic Christian International House of Pray…

Maybe we should get a law passed making it illegal to fund any non-profit church with a credit card...

You cannot abolish the church.

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

#268

Post by NortySpock »

jrwoodruff wrote: post #186
NortySpock wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But does anyone care or know what MasterCard is associated with? The average layperson would care if MasterCard got hit with a headline like: "MasterCard processed payments for Very Bad People for months/years!". Layperson: Guess I'm calling my congressman and switching to Visa! I assume MasterCard would (a) retain some very good PR firms to assist with keeping their image clean and (b) distance themselves from any…

Would they though? I very rarely consider which credit card processor I'm using - it's what card has the best interest/rewards/whatever, or what logo does my personal bank use on their debit cards. It's not like I can go to my bank and say "I'm done with the mastercard debit card, give me your visa debit card please"

> it's what [credit] card has the best interest/rewards/whatever

...and doesn't have a reputation in the toilet.

Would you get a SatanCard(tm)? Generous 10% cash back rewards but we make our money by extorting the elderly, killing kids, addicting adolescents to hard drugs, profiteering on pollution in your hometown, kicking puppies on video, and if you die we come after your family for the money, regardless of local laws.

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

#269

Post by hulitu »

barnacled wrote: post #76
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…

>huge companies do not make changes like this purely on the basis of newspaper columns. The same newspaper ran similar tactics against YouTube which resulted in colossal changes. These kinds of stories have an enormous impact, magnified I think by company's (in the case of YouTube, advertisers, in the case of OF, payment providers and investors) being terrified of snowballing bad PR in social media. It's strange but…

it has nothing to do with media. They just use the media to justify their strategy.

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

#270

Post by brodouevencode »

sschueller wrote: post #213
Pet_Ant wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Cry “ Exodus Cry is a non-profit advocacy organization seeking the abolition of the legal commercial sex industry, including pornography, strip clubs and sex work, as well as illegal sex trafficking. The organization originally developed out of a weekly prayer group founded in 2007 by Benjamin Nolot, a filmmaker and member of the charismatic Christian International House of Pray…

Maybe we should get a law passed making it illegal to fund any non-profit church with a credit card...

In the churches of which I've been a member, most tithes and donations come in cash. More orthodox Christians won't even have credit cards because the consumerist nature is contrary to scripture.
Post reply on HN