Live data from Hacker News

A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong

twitter.com

331–340 of 457 posts

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

#331
post #327
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more complex than that. For one thing the current porn industry does have some ethical issues. Even people not opposed to pornography per se have issues. But beyond that, the zealously anti-porn crowd isn't just Christians. It's something of an unholy alliance -- you have more than a few ultra-woke, a smattering of the Q crowd type, and of course the good ol' fashioned core of Catholic and Baptist types. Plus no…

The thing that the "christian" industry does also has ethical issues. In a lot of countries church has engaged in raping of children and child abuse.

You're right, I've read numerous articles and editorials in the NYTimes about this issue.

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

#332
post #26

I believe his argumentation that this is a push by Christian organizations might be correct, but I believe he's deluded in that he appears to think that he's speaking for the majority. "65% of adults in the United States identified themselves as Christians."

Most Christians I know are against legislating morality because that could result in the government being involved in the church.

Where is the demarcation line between "legislating morality" and simply "legislating"? Murder is morally wrong, aren't laws against murder thus legislating morality? I don't claim to know many christians, but the phrase "legislating morality" isn't in the common vernacular of those I know. They advocate for what they believe in, and advocate against that which they oppose, the same as anybody else.

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

#333
post #7

This might be a good time to discuss whether payment processors should have the ability to restrict legal trades (CP is a few bad apples). This applies to things like sex work and porn but also censorship of political views. I think it's stupid to pay for porn when there's so much available for free but who am I to judge what people do with their money and body as long as it's consensual adults? Plus if we are to enj…

> I think it's stupid to pay for porn when there's so much available for free > if we are to enjoy the free stuff, we also gotta make sure the content creators get paid What do you mean by "paying for porn" versus "make sure the content creators get paid"? Do you mean pay content creators as directly as possible, rather than paying distribution/publication platforms?

I read that as "I'm not going to pay for it but we need to make sure some people have the ability to pay so I can continue to enjoy it for free"

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

#334
post #297
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.

The best argument "against prostitution" is the moral argument against consuming it: you don't and _can't_ know if the person you're paying for is too poor or too wasted to be able to choose to participate, or if they're being threatened with violence into participating by a pimp, for example. Coerced sexual activity with another person is r-pe (as opposed to, say, working at Burger King, which might be coerced by th…

Do you think enjoying the product of all coerced labor is wrong, or only sexual coerced labor?

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

#335
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.

Yours is a short question to make, but it requires a very long answer, not fit for a comment box. The negative consequences of prostitution are deeply personal because the effects of sex on the participants go deeper and last longer than the effects of the act of copulation. If you want a good argument against prostitution one route could be to understand the link between sexual expression and: intimacy, self esteem, love, relationships...

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

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You are asking the difference if my 18 year old daughter posts pics of her butthole that will be on the internet for life, versus making videos about video games? I think she is more likely to potentially regret the butthole pics vs the video game videos being out there on the web for life.

The reason she'd regret the latter is because society would shame and bully her for it.

Sometimes morals are the devil, and it is so in this case. Logically, there is no physical or mental harm, unless others choose to inflict it as a result of doing something they consider immoral and want punished.

Even in the case of CSAM I read this is often used to blackmail the child into continued exploitation. They'll get one photo out of pretending to be someone of the same age and all that, and then they'll get more by blackmailing the child that if they don't they'll send the photo to their parents, friends, and all that. The child has already learned that what they did was wrong and that people will make a big deal out of it. They fear the moral repercussions more than to continue along with the exploiter. That's messed up.

In my opinion, this same morality is also responsible for the illegal market around sex work and its bad conditions. Because it puts the workers and/or the exploited into a corner, with everyone against them, on one side there's the exploiter, and on the other side the moral police. That makes it that sex workers have no way out.

If sex work wasn't moralized, and was just work like any other, you'd be able to see the clientele improve, since more normal people would pay for the service, where as now it's only people willing to break through the morals that do so which tend to be sleezier. And you'd see the work conditions improve, as workers could mobilize, freely hop from one employer to another, go to the police when they need to report bad conduct or abuse, file a lawsuit against their employer, etc.

But it would take more than legalization, it would need to become morally inconspicuous and accepted as just another normal thing. Until that happens, well, yes, you're totally right, it would be regrettable to post a photo of your butthole online, as society will shame you for it big time. In fact, it doesn't care if you post it yourself voluntarily, or if you are exploited into posting it, or if your ex-boyfriend posts it out of revenge, you'll get shamed and punished by society equally on all cases for it. That's where I feel society is responsible, we create the opportunity for harm by making it shameful.

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

#337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 r…

I've heard plenty of good arguments against using heroin. It's extremely (and immediately) addictive. Recovering from that addiction is nearly impossible for most people. Even if a person safely uses it, and can safely and legally maintain their addiction, heroin is inherently harmful to that person. Is sex work (prostitution) inherently harmful? I don't think so. Sure, there are plenty of closely related things that…

You act as if heroin and sexwork are in two different universes. They are in the same universe and they overlap quite a lot. You can be pro-sex without being a Pollyanna about it across the board. Things happen in both domains that don't fit either the happy model or the doomful one.

Edit: you say recovering from heroin addiction and second-order effects are all negative as if sexwork has no impact on, for example, human relationships, and while I like some of the thought that went into your post, it still reads as a bit absurd.

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

#338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stand by what I actually wrote: that they did everything feasible to remove and report illegal content. Having more extensive verification of uploaders does not an expanded effort to remove and report illegal content that gets posted, but rather an effort to prevent said content from being uploaded in the first place. And as you pointed out, this comes with tradeoffs in the form of a more onerous sign up process. T…

> I stand by what I actually wrote: that they did everything feasible to remove and report illegal content. I mean they didn't even do that. Wasn't their enforcement team pretty small? The original op-ed said it was ~80 people. In any case it was inadequate. > but rather an effort to prevent said content from being uploaded in the first place. PornHub chose a model that made it impossible for them to deal with their…

>Businesses don't have the right to make compliance optional or inadequate if it doesn't work for their business model. They have to pick a business model that can be compliant.

Not to be snarky, but isn't the the SV business model. Facebook 'are not a publisher', because editors cost too much. Uber are 'not an employer', because proper benefits cost too much..etc ad infinitum

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

#339
post #170
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…

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…

In a perfect world where all people are rational, and the media is largely truthful and professional, politicians are incorruptible and bound by laws, and businesses love to take care of their clients - sure, it may work that way.

In a real world, where people are prone to moral panics, the press is driven by clicks and agendas, politicians are corrupt and routinely abuse power, and businesses love to cover their asses - a single accusation in anything sex-related could cause a lot of damage to any business, whether truthful or not.

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

#340

Aren't the payment processors not abusing their dominant position, like what happened a decade ago with Wikileaks? At least at that time they had the excuse they were pressured by the US government. What's motivating them this time? Do we need some sort of liability safe-harbor for payment processors?

These large international payment processors, with their almost mafia/cartel-like rules and influence, have a long history of being used by powerful entities do enforce policies that would otherwise be (and in many cases actually are) illegal.

Their behavior certainly goes way beyond their legal mandate, if not in the USA then for in other countries. Certainly arbitrary, within international context all but certainly illegal. Considering the impact that have had around the globe with their abuses, arguable even covert state terrorism.

However, they are essentially untouchable. Any substantial threat to these companies will have several huge economies instantly through all their persuading power at whomever may cause pose that threat. I don't see that changing as long as these companies are such a convenient tool, in a system where literally everything is ruled by capital (how conveniently).

But the system will erode itself, step by step. Until it does come to a collapse. Good luck with that day, for I hope to not live to see it happen (it won't be pretty).

Post reply on HN