Live data from Hacker News

OnlyFans drops planned porn ban

variety.com

1–10 of 1001 posts

Re: OnlyFans drops planned porn ban

#3
post #2

Wonder if this was all a publicity stunt to put pressure on their payment processors.

Possibly.

The amount of coverage this got in the financial press (particularly the FT) would seem to support this theory.

Additionally, it's interesting that the reversal happened after he named the banks in his FT interview yesterday.

Re: OnlyFans drops planned porn ban

#5
post #2

Wonder if this was all a publicity stunt to put pressure on their payment processors.

If so, I think that's a good thing. This should bring attention to payment processors' ability to effectively kill any type of business they don't agree with.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Should banks be forced to behave as a common carrier? Or do we want private companies to be able to ban the public from purchasing things like pornography and firearms by stopping adults from completing legal transactions?

Re: OnlyFans drops planned porn ban

#6
post #2

Wonder if this was all a publicity stunt to put pressure on their payment processors.

I doubt it. I'd imagine one of their top priorities is relationship with models on their site. It's not like they have some crazy proprietary platform that couldn't be copied. If it came out this was a head fake it would damage that trust with models.

Re: OnlyFans drops planned porn ban

#7
post #2

Wonder if this was all a publicity stunt to put pressure on their payment processors.

The CEO actually blamed banks, not payment processors. He specifically said MasterCard was not to blame, but name-dropped banks that he did blame.

I don't think payment processors would care at all because they're an oligopoly. I doubt most banks would care much either, but maybe they are afraid of losing business from large-volume merchants.

Most likely some alternative banks stepped up and told OnlyFans they'd love to work with them.

Re: OnlyFans drops planned porn ban

#9
It's extraordinary that payment processors don't have any regulations that force them to serve businesses in a neutral fashion. It's weird that they're allowed to play morality police with the Internet even though they have no formal governmental role as such.

You'd think that once the government decides what is and isn't acceptable, the processors would follow that lead. But instead they go a different, more restrictive way.

I guess they want to be everyone's prudish uncle, instead of payment processors.

Post reply on HN