Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OnlyFans to block sexually explicit videos starting in October

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: OnlyFans to block sexually explicit videos starting in October

#301

Post by tofuahdude »

perardi wrote: post #207

Wow, you spend years thinking crypto is convoluted nonsense…and then something comes along that impacts a lot of your friends, and you start to change your mind. I have a fair number† of friends and acquaintances who have OnlyFans. Some for side income, some for a substantial portion of their livelihood. And to see that get taken away because the payment processors want them to fall in line…I guess I’m on the crypto…

"This is all garbage" followed by "Oh, it happened to me or my loved ones and now it's not garbage" is such a classic pattern across so many controversial topics.

I wonder how we can be more open minded as a society while still keeping enough skepticism to not accept literal garbage.

Re: OnlyFans to block sexually explicit videos starting in October

#302

Post by travisjungroth »

l33t2328 wrote: post #198
emodendroket wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should there be? It seems absurd to MANDATE anyone participate in the sex trade. There are payment processors who specialize in adult content.

You know how US Dollars say “This note is legal tender for all debts” on them? It seems to absurd to allow companies with an oligopoly on most of the transfer of those notes to pick and choose what sectors are appropriate for citizens to interact with financially.

> companies with an oligopoly on most of the transfer of those notes

This is an important distinction. Credit card payments are not notes. They are not cash. So these companies have very little to do with the transfer of cash.

The point of "legal tender" is that if you try to pay off a debt in cash, they can't claim you haven't paid it and take you to court. If you try to pay for your meal in a restaurant with cash and they refuse, you can just walk out and they wouldn't have a legal case (probably. in theory. not legal advice).

What's tricky is this has to be a debt, as in past tense. If you try to buy groceries with cash and they refuse, you can walk out but you can't the groceries with you.

Participation in the cash market is mandatory on anyone who is owed money. Everything else on top (credit cards, checks) is essentially voluntary. Merchants can take it or leave it, the processors can come or go.

If you want to make an argument about the outsized effect that Visa has on the US monetary system, that's totally legitimate. It just has little to do with the concept of "legal tender".

Re: OnlyFans to block sexually explicit videos starting in October

#303

Post by spoonjim »

jerf wrote: post #9

So, serious question because I know very little about OnlyFans other than the general knowledge flowing around the internet: What does this leave of the site? Because my impression was certainly that this was the purpose of the site.

Think “show your titties,” not “suck a dick.”

Re: OnlyFans to block sexually explicit videos starting in October

#304

Post by jwond »

ribosometronome wrote: post #256
jwond wrote: post #221

It seems a lot of people in this post are opposed to payment processors pressuring OnlyFans to do this. When Google, Apple, Amazon, et al. simultaneously took actions that resulted in the shutdown of Gab it seemed a lot of people supported it. Now they could very well be completely disjoint groups, but I’d be interested if anyone who opposes the payment processors pressuring OnlyFans but supported the actions taken a…

Are you surprised folk agree with things that fit their morals and disagree with ones that don't? Gab was being used to promote hate, violence, and misinformation. Onlyfans is not those things. This feels akin to saying something like, "Oh, you were onboard when the government criminalized murder, how do you feel now that they're criminalizing weed?!"

> Gab was being used to promote hate, violence, and misinformation

So is every other social media site

Re: OnlyFans to block sexually explicit videos starting in October

#305

Post by admn2 »

gumby wrote: post #238
jpeter wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should payment processors force them to. They will make less money

I had a friend who ran a “sexually explicit” site you’ve heard of. He was paying north of 25% to payment processors (compare to less than .2% restaurants pay…though his margins were much bigger). The payment processors take this attitude because that way they can tell congress they are “doing something about vice”, and in exchange not be subject to undesired regulations. I suspect this kind of soft pressure is being…

Seems like a business opportunity for someone to build a Stripe for vice businesses. Question I know nothing about is besides being stigmatized, do these industries have higher fraud rates? Pretty sure credit card companies won't let you "chargeback" stripe clubs as fraud even if it wasn't you.

Re: OnlyFans to block sexually explicit videos starting in October

#307

Post by cronix »

emodendroket wrote: post #161
jpeter wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should payment processors force them to. They will make less money

Probably the reputational risk to them from being associated with porn is not worth whatever OnlyFans brings in.

I don't think I've ever been on onlyfans, but anytime I've heard the name in a news context it is associated with pay-for-porn. I don't think I've ever heard of a non-porn thing on there, whether its in the news or people advertising their fan site. Do they actually have some sort of non-porn reputation that exceeds the porn reputation that I've never heard mentioned before? From what I gather, their reputation is about the same as pornhub, when it comes to "porn." I don't see how they fix that, and stay in business. This is just an opinion of a passer-by who casually hears the name. I don't think I'm much different than most people who have never been on there, which I'm assuming is most people in general.

Re: OnlyFans to block sexually explicit videos starting in October

#308

Post by nwienert »

bob33212 wrote: post #283
perardi wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sustainably? Or will they replicate, survive for a while, get to a critical mass, and then get nuked from orbit by Visa?

If crypto was ever going to be useful, this is where it will do it.

I know of people building OF in crypto, I’m sure they’re happy right now.

Re: OnlyFans to block sexually explicit videos starting in October

#309

Post by tofuahdude »

spoonjim wrote: post #303
jerf wrote: post #9

So, serious question because I know very little about OnlyFans other than the general knowledge flowing around the internet: What does this leave of the site? Because my impression was certainly that this was the purpose of the site.

Think “show your titties,” not “suck a dick.”

Man, I would hate to be the judge of "nude but not sexually explicit" content

Re: OnlyFans to block sexually explicit videos starting in October

#310

Post by boplicity »

l33t2328 wrote: post #152
dweekly wrote: post #126

It sure sounds like this was forced on them by their payment processors, not that this was a voluntary move. https://twitter.com/danprimack/status/1428420774449266691?s=...

This is absolutely ridiculous. What if they decide people can no longer buy dildos or lube or condoms or guns or alcohol or meat on Fridays? There’s no law with respect to “payment neutrality”??

1. Freedom of Speech extends to all parties in a relationship

2. Freedom of speech includes choosing who I work with

3. It makes sense to have certain restrictions on freedom of speech, especially as it relates to clearly harmful discrimination (i.e. racial discrimination, gender discrimination)

4. It does not make sense to restrict freedom of speech in the case of pornography, specifically, whether a company can choose to work with pornographers or not

Post reply on HN