It would be really great if this were an actual article somewhere and not a thousand Twitter posts.
A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
431–440 of 457 posts
Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
#432Earlier 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.
Payment processor scenario: you need to select one, for example for the POS in your new grocery store. Your fanatical friend says that the evil heathens at provider X support porn and you should avoid payments from X. You want to appease your friend, even if you don't want to boycott porn; on the other side of the balance, in favor of using provider X anyway, no compelling business or moral reason.
Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
#433This person appears to see a vast conspiracy by /the christians/. It's all just so bizarre.
Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
#434Aren'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?
I’m not sure if it’s abuse. In The Netherlands, ING got a €750,000,000 fine from the government (the largest ever in this country) for not doing enough to prevent money laundering. It basically ate up the entire quarterly profits.
So I don’t think it’s so much “abusing a dominant position” as “being subject to so many regulations and potential fines that it’s almost always better to just not engage in some business than to take any risk”. Lost revenue from OnlyFans is peanuts compared to potential fines for “facilitating sex trafficking”.
Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
#435Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, h…
>They are in the same universe and they overlap quite a lot. not really. 95+% of the population will experience some sexual activity at some point in their life. It is argued as a basic biological need in some psychologies, and a basic pscyological/social need for the rest that may not want to compare it to food/water/shelter. 95% of the population will never do heroin. I argue over half will never even see heroin to…
Is it even possible to move the goalposts farther than this response?
Equating sexwork with all sexual activity is like equating opiate abuse with smiling.
Edit: Hmm, new account comment but, flagged for what? Making a point plainly?
Edit2: The topic is sexwork, the legality or illegality therein and the pros and cons, the parent wants to talk about any sex instead, I believe "moving the goalposts" is accurate, but flagging that is something else entirely. @dang?
Edit3: I must have missed an unwritten HN guideline, somehow it seems wrong to me, but I'll leave it here for future reference: all drugs all bad, all sex all good. TIL.
Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
'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 d…
In which other industry is a massive subset of workers r-ped each day?
There were children working in Industrial Revolution factories that ended up perfectly healthy. You and I recognize the practice as immoral (I assume?) because the exceptions don't matter
Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
#437Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, h…
>They are in the same universe and they overlap quite a lot. not really. 95+% of the population will experience some sexual activity at some point in their life. It is argued as a basic biological need in some psychologies, and a basic pscyological/social need for the rest that may not want to compare it to food/water/shelter. 95% of the population will never do heroin. I argue over half will never even see heroin to…
[deleted]
Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
#438Earlier 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…
Criminalizing expected human behaviors is ineffective or harmful, and choosing particular people's behaviors for punishment to favor some group is not going to be well received. On that we can agree.
Sexwork/sex-addiction/illegal drug activity are not operating separately and are not without harms. Both are vices, both are subject to some degree of free personal choice, and both can harm families. Think of the children, once in a while, if you will, while pretending the ecstatic act that makes them.
Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
#439Earlier 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.
This has nothing to do with boycotts or consumer choice. It's about regulation. If payment processors don't crack down the government will. No one votes for pedos.
Re: A lot of people are getting the OnlyFans story wrong
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why not fix the code that suggests rape videos? Deciding what is and isn't rape is an AI-hard problem.
Pornhub literally hasn't even let you search "rape" in years. Go ahead and search it. 0 results. This precedes the now infamous editorial. Same with "forced" and "brutal".
This doesn't help, just ask Winnie the Pooh. (Xi) People are very creative with language to get around filters.