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

381–390 of 457 posts

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

#381

Post by _bfhp »

neolog wrote: post #373
_bfhp wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Do you think all violence is wrong, or only murder?" Of course there are degrees. I don't really see the gotcha here -- if you found out your favorite anime or Pixar movie was animated by slaves, would you still be able to enjoy it?

It wasn't supposed to be a gotcha. Coerced work is bad, especially so if the work is damaging to the worker. My point is that this isn't specific to sex work. Products produced by workers under wage slavery can be avoided using supply chain management, while promoting ethical labor practices that permit workers security and independence. A tradeoff exists between reducing risk of nonconsenting work while enabling con…

I didn't advocate for any policies though. As I said, it's a "moral argument against consuming" (or buying) sex work. If you want to run the risk of r-ping someone, or getting off to r-pe videos, that's a choice made by many; I just think very few are honest about it.

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

#382

Post by Shish2k »

wruza wrote: post #357
neolog wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bodies are used commercially all the time, such as in manual labor, physical therapy, disability care, security, policing, military service, athletics, dancing, commercial modeling, ... The problem that's particular to sex work is legal systems that fail to prevent coercion. This is exacerbated by religious advocacy groups that try to make sex work harder without making it safer.

It seems that you equate sex to manual labour, when it is one of our important biosocial functions (if not the central) that involves much more complex reactions and distortions at all sides (a prostitute, a client, an aware neighborhood/society) than kicking a shovel into the dirt or massaging a muscle. It’s always baffling how some people try to render it as just a mechanical process akin to workout and/or blowing…

> It’s always baffling how some people try to render it as just a mechanical process

I am equally baffled by people who try to render it as some supernatural mystical magical soul-corrupting[0] process ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[0] unless done between a married man and woman in the missionary position with the lights off for the sole purpose of reproduction and neither of them enjoys it, of course

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

#383

Post by _bfhp »

kilroy123 wrote: post #378
_bfhp wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issue isn't that OnlyFans is trying to prevent content by minors, it's that kilroy thinks the minors are somehow to blame for "their [unclean] acts"

Excuse me? Where did I said that? People are profiting off the sexual exploitation of minors. You're just seeing what you want to see.

Please excuse me as I misread your first post. By "they're" you meant OF, not the minors. I apologize, sloppy reading on my part.

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

#384

Post by _bfhp »

neolog wrote: post #308
_bfhp wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also source-free. Love the flourish at the end with the typical third-wave male feminist line of "this has [probably] gotten sex workers killed" when what really kills sex workers is violent men and poverty/drugs.

I agree the perpetrators are to blame for violence and the poverty/abuse to blame for victims' inability to obtain redress. But the legal system has a role to play in ensuring noncoercion and empowering workers, which it's currently failing at. That said, OP's claims on the concealed religious motivation and the negative effects of current sex work policies on consenting workers are essentially true.[1] The president…

'men veering wildly between "sex work is a choice" and "these women will die if they can't do sex work" - pick one! it can't be both.' [1]

[1] https://twitter.com/newthoughtcrime/status/14286889078232064...

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

#385

Post by [deleted] »

_bfhp wrote: post #381
neolog wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't supposed to be a gotcha. Coerced work is bad, especially so if the work is damaging to the worker. My point is that this isn't specific to sex work. Products produced by workers under wage slavery can be avoided using supply chain management, while promoting ethical labor practices that permit workers security and independence. A tradeoff exists between reducing risk of nonconsenting work while enabling con…

I didn't advocate for any policies though. As I said, it's a "moral argument against consuming" (or buying) sex work. If you want to run the risk of r-ping someone, or getting off to r-pe videos, that's a choice made by many; I just think very few are honest about it.

[deleted]

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

#386

Post by neolog »

_bfhp wrote: post #384
neolog wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree the perpetrators are to blame for violence and the poverty/abuse to blame for victims' inability to obtain redress. But the legal system has a role to play in ensuring noncoercion and empowering workers, which it's currently failing at. That said, OP's claims on the concealed religious motivation and the negative effects of current sex work policies on consenting workers are essentially true.[1] The president…

'men veering wildly between "sex work is a choice" and "these women will die if they can't do sex work" - pick one! it can't be both.' [1] [1] https://twitter.com/newthoughtcrime/status/14286889078232064...

The four women I quoted are pointing out that workers prefer to have safer venues for doing business, more community connections, and better legal support for their business. To avoid cases of exploitation, improving social welfare is a good response.

Sex work by itself is neither liberating nor exploitative, just as any other domain of work isn't. That determination applies to the circumstance of the work, not the domain. Better policies can improve protections for sex workers and prevent coercive abuse as they have done in other industries.

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

#387

Post by wruza »

Shish2k wrote: post #382
wruza wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that you equate sex to manual labour, when it is one of our important biosocial functions (if not the central) that involves much more complex reactions and distortions at all sides (a prostitute, a client, an aware neighborhood/society) than kicking a shovel into the dirt or massaging a muscle. It’s always baffling how some people try to render it as just a mechanical process akin to workout and/or blowing…

> It’s always baffling how some people try to render it as just a mechanical process I am equally baffled by people who try to render it as some supernatural mystical magical soul-corrupting[0] process ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ [0] unless done between a married man and woman in the missionary position with the lights off for the sole purpose of reproduction and neither of them enjoys it, of course

Did I describe it in such way? Or is it you bending the argument to the opposite religious extremum? What for?

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

#388

Post by lazide »

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.

They don't need to boycott it - financial regulators can and have come down on banks and payment processors for allowing 'morally dubious businesses' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point] such as payday lenders, firearms related companies, porn producers, and many more. There is a long history of this type of thing happening, and no one wants to get near an industry where their underlying ability to bank (and therefore interact with the financial system at all) can be yanked with a phone call.

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

#389

Post by lazide »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #58

Net... uhm.. payment-processors-neutrality! I have no idea why payment processors get to choose and pick what they want to process and what they don't.

The underlying mentality behind [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point] is why.

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

#390

Post by foerbert »

bko wrote: post #344
foerbert wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that reasoning would apply to something like payment processing. It absolutely makes sense when you are manufacturing a physical good. No point in designing a thing that you might not be able to sell for very long, particularly when you're dealing with something like automobiles. Plus honestly, which car buyer wants less miles per gallon? Payment processing though is rather different. You can do it today…

They'll preemptivly do it because the revenue is not a lot and the headache and worrying is not worth it. It's not black and white where something isn't allowed. There's likely more hoops you have to jump through. When it does get enforced its easier to just say we don't allow any transactions in that an even broader category than is currently being targeted. And there isn't a button that says "exclude all payments i…

I still don't see it. These laws aren't going to sneak up on them. It's not like they're going to have 12 hours notice to categorize and terminate all accounts in some category.

Again it's not something that has much upfront cost nor do later products depend on the current decision.

OF was pulling in about $400M/year. If law changes were a serious risk here, how are they making any money at all? At least two years are probably dependable here. If the payment processor can't be profitable processing $800M over two years for a single account, I don't see how that business would work at all.

Post reply on HN