OnlyFans to block sexually explicit videos starting in October(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
OnlyFans to block sexually explicit videos starting in October
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-19/onlyfans-to-block-sexually-explicit-videos-starting-in-october
1,393 comments
This is going to be corporate suicide on a greater scale than Tumblr's policy.
I say greater because OnlyFans is/was still on a massive upswing whereas Tumblr was 10 years past its peak already when the nails went in the coffin.
Edit: I understand this is supposedly not their choice.
I say greater because OnlyFans is/was still on a massive upswing whereas Tumblr was 10 years past its peak already when the nails went in the coffin.
Edit: I understand this is supposedly not their choice.
I honestly did not know they did anything besides porn. They have a really bad marketing department as I bet most people only know of them via porn (or I run in a slightly more degenerate circle).
It’s a recent push toward more mainstream performers. For example, there are pro surfers who are popular youtube vloggers (e.g. Nathan Florence) who recently started onlyfans channels. Nathan’s is a fitness training channel. It threw a lot of people off guard. And I strongly suspect that onlyfans paid him to start this channel.
https://onlyfans.com/nathanflorence https://dailycaller.com/2021/06/17/onlyfans-pivot-porn-backi...
https://onlyfans.com/nathanflorence https://dailycaller.com/2021/06/17/onlyfans-pivot-porn-backi...
This is pretty stupid though, to throw away the business you have for the business you might have, there is heaps of porn on Twitter, looking at it is optional. Why can't it just co-exist with other "acceptable" content ?
I would imagine it's very trivial to have a "Show me explicit content" setting.
Edit: Side note, I don’t know why porn is so shameful, especially concerning adults posting high quality content, it’s their art.
I would imagine it's very trivial to have a "Show me explicit content" setting.
Edit: Side note, I don’t know why porn is so shameful, especially concerning adults posting high quality content, it’s their art.
>Side note, I don’t know why porn is so shameful
Is it really such a mystery?
Mostly every religion prohibits sexual freedom and most every government has deeply religious members in the legislature. There is no separation of the church's morals and political ones.
Which means yes, I'm suggesting a ban on religion in the political space. I don't mean you can't be a politician if you're religious, I mean you should be fired if you ever fall back on religious grounds while executing your responsibility.
Strange how the more religious the political leadership, the less freedoms you find in that society, regardless of religion (and like all generalisations, there are plenty of exceptions to that sweeping statement).
This is really not meant as an assault on religion, but let's not pretend that Church is not a political institution. You can have a legislative and judicial political leadership, or a religious one.
But I don't believe it's possible to have both (and call yourself a free country)
Is it really such a mystery?
Mostly every religion prohibits sexual freedom and most every government has deeply religious members in the legislature. There is no separation of the church's morals and political ones.
Which means yes, I'm suggesting a ban on religion in the political space. I don't mean you can't be a politician if you're religious, I mean you should be fired if you ever fall back on religious grounds while executing your responsibility.
Strange how the more religious the political leadership, the less freedoms you find in that society, regardless of religion (and like all generalisations, there are plenty of exceptions to that sweeping statement).
This is really not meant as an assault on religion, but let's not pretend that Church is not a political institution. You can have a legislative and judicial political leadership, or a religious one.
But I don't believe it's possible to have both (and call yourself a free country)
> I'm suggesting a ban on religion in the political space.
Religions are just old ideologies centered on an anthropomorphic metaphor. It's not possible to exist without ideology -- even if it's something neoliberal and pared-down.
And, people will create institutions to provide them with additional structure, if the State isn't giving it to them. They'll organize around a priest, or a VP of DEI; they'll choose a holy book (Atlas Shrugged, the Koran, Das Kapital), and so on. And, lo and behold, those alternative structures will start coercing people too.
> prohibits sexual freedom
The older I get, the more I think "freedom" is a trap. What is the alcoholic's freedom to drink? The procrastinator's freedom to watch YouTube videos?
Odysseus, before sailing past the Sirens, was wise enough to ask his sailors to tie him to the mast.
I know you say you're self-motivated, but how many of you would really accomplish much without at least a little pressure from a boss, from perf review, or from your peers at least? "But I'm the CEO!", you say. Well, do you ever work harder as you prep for a board meeting?
I will do a dangerous thing now and, although essentially secular, make an Old Testament reference: What of Onan's freedom from responsibility for Tamar (i.e., his choice to leave her abandoned after Er's death), freedom from responsibility for the children he would have had with her? (People have myopically and stupidly focused on the "mechanics" of that story while missing the point.)
What if the consequences of your "freedom" don't hit you for many years? What if, as an individual, you simply don't have enough time in your life to make the mistake and learn from it?
I know a few people who were "free" to completely fuck up their lives, and they're belatedly figuring it out now, usually when it's too late.
Religions are just old ideologies centered on an anthropomorphic metaphor. It's not possible to exist without ideology -- even if it's something neoliberal and pared-down.
And, people will create institutions to provide them with additional structure, if the State isn't giving it to them. They'll organize around a priest, or a VP of DEI; they'll choose a holy book (Atlas Shrugged, the Koran, Das Kapital), and so on. And, lo and behold, those alternative structures will start coercing people too.
> prohibits sexual freedom
The older I get, the more I think "freedom" is a trap. What is the alcoholic's freedom to drink? The procrastinator's freedom to watch YouTube videos?
Odysseus, before sailing past the Sirens, was wise enough to ask his sailors to tie him to the mast.
I know you say you're self-motivated, but how many of you would really accomplish much without at least a little pressure from a boss, from perf review, or from your peers at least? "But I'm the CEO!", you say. Well, do you ever work harder as you prep for a board meeting?
I will do a dangerous thing now and, although essentially secular, make an Old Testament reference: What of Onan's freedom from responsibility for Tamar (i.e., his choice to leave her abandoned after Er's death), freedom from responsibility for the children he would have had with her? (People have myopically and stupidly focused on the "mechanics" of that story while missing the point.)
What if the consequences of your "freedom" don't hit you for many years? What if, as an individual, you simply don't have enough time in your life to make the mistake and learn from it?
I know a few people who were "free" to completely fuck up their lives, and they're belatedly figuring it out now, usually when it's too late.
I'd like to start by saying I respect your arguments.
Freedom is a very multifaceted word. On one hand, it means being free from coercion from others to do or not do what you want. On the other, it also means being free to do what you want without being forced into it by your own mind.
Most people have no freedom over their own minds, they would be slaves even if no laws applied to them and they had infinite money. Restricting physical freedom to guide those people even makes sense, as I would say those people are the majority.
But why the fuck would I accept that? I choose what I do and what I feel, why should I submit to others rules "for my own good" when my own mind has shown itself capable of choosing the correct option even when it hurts? Why should I limit my potential so every idiot who can't go 5 seconds without his little dopamine hits won't find a way to kill himself by the time he's 40? Why are the lives of the unaccomplished masses more important than my own?
Admittedly, this isn't a huge problem in my life, since to quote the New Testament, "if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move". Yet I feel like this kind of paternalism stunts the growth of those who would one day learn true freedom from themselves too. If you are shepherded into behaving, you do not learn why one must behave that way.
Freedom is a very multifaceted word. On one hand, it means being free from coercion from others to do or not do what you want. On the other, it also means being free to do what you want without being forced into it by your own mind.
Most people have no freedom over their own minds, they would be slaves even if no laws applied to them and they had infinite money. Restricting physical freedom to guide those people even makes sense, as I would say those people are the majority.
But why the fuck would I accept that? I choose what I do and what I feel, why should I submit to others rules "for my own good" when my own mind has shown itself capable of choosing the correct option even when it hurts? Why should I limit my potential so every idiot who can't go 5 seconds without his little dopamine hits won't find a way to kill himself by the time he's 40? Why are the lives of the unaccomplished masses more important than my own?
Admittedly, this isn't a huge problem in my life, since to quote the New Testament, "if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move". Yet I feel like this kind of paternalism stunts the growth of those who would one day learn true freedom from themselves too. If you are shepherded into behaving, you do not learn why one must behave that way.
> if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain
The context of your quote is especially apt for a discussion of (structure as a defense against) addiction, since it's about a man who was, in the understanding of the day, "possessed by a demon", and who was cured.
Now -- this is sort of an aside -- I'll admit that my first reaction to
> this isn't a huge problem in my life, since [Bible quote about how, with faith, anything is possible]
was negative, because it felt like how my mental caricature of an Evangelical (note acceptable prejudice) would brag ("look how much faith I have"). As was my reaction to
> Why should I limit my potential [...]? Why are the lives of the unaccomplished masses more important than my own?
which had more ego than... my culture teaches to put out there.
But, to look for the important point, it was that if someone were to really go all in on Christianity (in the "radical" sense), instead of just keeping it at arm's length and looking for some wisdom here and there (my approach -- and borrowing not just from Christianity), then they'd start with faith, not the thing I'm calling structure, because -- the idea goes -- all the good deeds, all the behaviors, and so on, stem from faith; if you really believe, the rest will follow.
Or, using "Law" as a synonym for "structure", there is Galatians 3:23-26, which seems very on-the-nose:
Anyway, long story short, I think I see your point, which -- unless I have just projected a whole ton of additional meanings -- would be to emphasize Faith.
(That, I'm afraid, may be beyond me.)
The context of your quote is especially apt for a discussion of (structure as a defense against) addiction, since it's about a man who was, in the understanding of the day, "possessed by a demon", and who was cured.
Now -- this is sort of an aside -- I'll admit that my first reaction to
> this isn't a huge problem in my life, since [Bible quote about how, with faith, anything is possible]
was negative, because it felt like how my mental caricature of an Evangelical (note acceptable prejudice) would brag ("look how much faith I have"). As was my reaction to
> Why should I limit my potential [...]? Why are the lives of the unaccomplished masses more important than my own?
which had more ego than... my culture teaches to put out there.
But, to look for the important point, it was that if someone were to really go all in on Christianity (in the "radical" sense), instead of just keeping it at arm's length and looking for some wisdom here and there (my approach -- and borrowing not just from Christianity), then they'd start with faith, not the thing I'm calling structure, because -- the idea goes -- all the good deeds, all the behaviors, and so on, stem from faith; if you really believe, the rest will follow.
Or, using "Law" as a synonym for "structure", there is Galatians 3:23-26, which seems very on-the-nose:
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Anyway, long story short, I think I see your point, which -- unless I have just projected a whole ton of additional meanings -- would be to emphasize Faith.
(That, I'm afraid, may be beyond me.)
> Anyway, long story short, I think I see your point, which -- unless I have just projected a whole ton of additional meanings -- would be to emphasize Faith.
Yes. Structure can turn an animal into a man, but only faith can elevate him above that.
I do not much like the word faith, as it evokes in me the image of the "Christian faithful" all praying on their knees, hoping for a better future if they follow everything the two-faced priest says. Ultimately it achieves nothing, as blind structure following without feeling for anything deeper than that within yourself is a soulless activity. If you couldn't tell from those last two sentences, I'm not actually Christian. I have rather strong feelings towards them, since I have seen them pull the greatest trick of all: convincing the masses that religion is extrinsically rather than intrinsically motivated. "Faith" nowadays is orthopraxy.
The world is much more complicated than that, of course, and it is not the Christians who did it, or anyone in particular in my opinion. Religion is as much spiritualism as culture, and Western faith before them was explicitly orthopractic. But I feel much more at home criticizing a religion I have experienced, rather than far off ones.
As to my Matthew quote: it has a lot of meaning to me. It is the expression of a universal truth, that true faith (or true will, or spirit, the alchemist's gold and so on and so forth) is the power to change oneself, and thus change the world. Admittedly, the full story (Jesus heals the boy, who does nothing) does not reflect that, which ties back into my hatred of Christianity as a religion that teaches the masses to be powerless and seek their spiritual salvation in others, when it is readily available to them.
(I quote Bible passages with a perverse enjoyment, though)
Yes. Structure can turn an animal into a man, but only faith can elevate him above that.
I do not much like the word faith, as it evokes in me the image of the "Christian faithful" all praying on their knees, hoping for a better future if they follow everything the two-faced priest says. Ultimately it achieves nothing, as blind structure following without feeling for anything deeper than that within yourself is a soulless activity. If you couldn't tell from those last two sentences, I'm not actually Christian. I have rather strong feelings towards them, since I have seen them pull the greatest trick of all: convincing the masses that religion is extrinsically rather than intrinsically motivated. "Faith" nowadays is orthopraxy.
The world is much more complicated than that, of course, and it is not the Christians who did it, or anyone in particular in my opinion. Religion is as much spiritualism as culture, and Western faith before them was explicitly orthopractic. But I feel much more at home criticizing a religion I have experienced, rather than far off ones.
As to my Matthew quote: it has a lot of meaning to me. It is the expression of a universal truth, that true faith (or true will, or spirit, the alchemist's gold and so on and so forth) is the power to change oneself, and thus change the world. Admittedly, the full story (Jesus heals the boy, who does nothing) does not reflect that, which ties back into my hatred of Christianity as a religion that teaches the masses to be powerless and seek their spiritual salvation in others, when it is readily available to them.
(I quote Bible passages with a perverse enjoyment, though)
You're ignoring ideologies that are specifically about rejection of coercion, though. Structure doesn't always have to be imposed.
Are you perhaps projecting a US experience?
In the UK, the head of state is also the head of the state church, and things aren't too bad.
In Germany, the government is currently run by the Christian Democratic Union (and a few allies), and things seem reasonably secular.
In the UK, the head of state is also the head of the state church, and things aren't too bad.
In Germany, the government is currently run by the Christian Democratic Union (and a few allies), and things seem reasonably secular.
UK: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/04/25/banned-gay-porn-uk/
Germany: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/germany-porn-laws-age-checks
Germany: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/germany-porn-laws-age-checks
gay porn was not banned in the UK, but rather things associated with violence, aggression or non-consent; as such I fail to see the link to religion.
I'm not sure how requiring age check relates to being non-secular either. I'm not religious, but I don't think children should watch porn.
I'm not sure how requiring age check relates to being non-secular either. I'm not religious, but I don't think children should watch porn.
That was overturned.
The head of state is not the head of government, but you may be interested in this recent judgement to overturn a ban of some sexual acts in porn https://uk.news.yahoo.com/violent-porn-including-bdsm-no-lon...
UK is as close to police / surveillance state as it can get: a lot of things are benned, privacy is severely limited, internet is censored, strong crypto isn't exactly legal (even though no one been thrown in jail, yet), banking banned crypto and have severe KYC requirements, etc.
So in many areas UK has less freedoms than poor authoritarian countries. I cant say anything about Germany since I havent lived there.
So in many areas UK has less freedoms than poor authoritarian countries. I cant say anything about Germany since I havent lived there.
It's fascinating to me that you've used "crypto" as synecdoche for both cryptography and cryptocurrency in successive parts of the same sentence!
TIL what synechdoche means ...
Have a reference for strong crypto being illegal? I know the government store a month of all our personal correspondence (due to the snoopers charter) but Afaict crypto is still legal.
It is legal, but with caveat that you have to provide decryption keys on court order and refusing to do so is illegal. It wasn't heavily used against anyone as far as I aware, but it's can always change.
> banking banned crypto
cryptocurrency? Revenue taxes crypto gains so I doubt that.
cryptocurrency? Revenue taxes crypto gains so I doubt that.
Banks don't care if you paid taxes. Most of major banks will close your account if they suspect crypto-related transactions. And almost all fintech companies will ban your account if you even just buy crypto with a card payment: Wise, Monzo, Starling, etc.
crypto-related transactions is a different thing from banning banks from dealing in crypto. If banks don't want to deal with the Due-dil that's fair & fine to me. You don't need a bank to use an exchange.
> almost all fintech companies will ban your account
I believe revolut operates in the UK and allows you to trade in btc.
> almost all fintech companies will ban your account
I believe revolut operates in the UK and allows you to trade in btc.
> You don't need a bank to use an exchange.
And what do you suggest to use? Trade crypto to cash? And then how will I put said cash on bank account without getting on check list?
In UK even if you have 1000 GBP in cash they look at you like you're drug dealer.
> I believe revolut operates in the UK and allows you to trade in btc.
Revolut itself is shady and at least until recently didnt have or used any banking license in UK. And it's can ban you at any moment for no reason.
And what do you suggest to use? Trade crypto to cash? And then how will I put said cash on bank account without getting on check list?
In UK even if you have 1000 GBP in cash they look at you like you're drug dealer.
> I believe revolut operates in the UK and allows you to trade in btc.
Revolut itself is shady and at least until recently didnt have or used any banking license in UK. And it's can ban you at any moment for no reason.
In the UK you literally have to ask your ISP before you are allowed to see porn (or use a different name server).
And Germany is far from secular too - for example church taxes (even if you can opt out) are still collected via the government. There is also much more censorship in video games than in most other countries.
And Germany is far from secular too - for example church taxes (even if you can opt out) are still collected via the government. There is also much more censorship in video games than in most other countries.
> for example church taxes (even if you can opt out) are still collected via the government.
In other news US post office caught delivering mail to churches, synagogues and mosques. Religious conspiracy or completely normal?
> even if you can opt out
You had to be opted in in the first place, you don't get randomly assigned to one of the religious groups that signed up for that service.
> There is also much more censorship in video games than in most other countries.
Gotta love how quickly school shooters got blamed on video games. Can't blame the government, can't blame the poor parents who were barely even aware of their kids existence in the months leading up to the shooting, lets blame and censor games the kid never played.
In other news US post office caught delivering mail to churches, synagogues and mosques. Religious conspiracy or completely normal?
> even if you can opt out
You had to be opted in in the first place, you don't get randomly assigned to one of the religious groups that signed up for that service.
> There is also much more censorship in video games than in most other countries.
Gotta love how quickly school shooters got blamed on video games. Can't blame the government, can't blame the poor parents who were barely even aware of their kids existence in the months leading up to the shooting, lets blame and censor games the kid never played.
> In other news US post office caught delivering mail to churches, synagogues and mosques.
You have GOT to be joking!
Do you not see the difference between the government delivering postal mail to everyone, and the government collecting money for churches only - money that you have to explicitly opt-out of giving?
Will the government collect debts that other people owe me? Hell, no! So why should the government collecting church taxes for them?
You have GOT to be joking!
Do you not see the difference between the government delivering postal mail to everyone, and the government collecting money for churches only - money that you have to explicitly opt-out of giving?
Will the government collect debts that other people owe me? Hell, no! So why should the government collecting church taxes for them?
> and the government collecting money for churches only
I would be quite a bit richer if the government collected only church taxes. Would have been nice if I could have opted out of paying for that mess in Afghanistan.
> Will the government collect debts that other people owe me?
No, but maybe you could start a movement to have it recognize other, non religious, groups for this service.
I would be quite a bit richer if the government collected only church taxes. Would have been nice if I could have opted out of paying for that mess in Afghanistan.
> Will the government collect debts that other people owe me?
No, but maybe you could start a movement to have it recognize other, non religious, groups for this service.
I would suggest that giving religious institutions tax-free status in the US is a form of subsidy. That’s why it’s such a problem when they begin to preach in a partisan manner.
There are a lot of churches in the US, though. If we only paid taxes that went to churches - who knows - it might reach Afghanistan levels. Plus, there would be even more “private contractors from god” getting into the game.
The equivalent would be for each existing organisation (or individual) to have a box listed to check in the tax form (that is the privilege). That would be a long form, though.
Only the big 5 ISPs, I've got a small local one and it's pretty much completely unrestricted
> In the UK you literally have to ask your ISP before you are allowed to see porn (or use a different name server).
Or use a better ISP.
Or use a better ISP.
The UK doesn't really have a "state church" - arguably England does, but that's only part of the UK (albeit by far the largest part).
I've just learned about the UK internet blocks.
Is it true that torrent sites are blocked for adults and consensual BDSM like spanking is considered illegal pornography?
I can't really believe it till I hear it from a person.
I had no idea. This completely changes my view of the UK and the world suddenly seems much darker.
Is it true that torrent sites are blocked for adults and consensual BDSM like spanking is considered illegal pornography?
I can't really believe it till I hear it from a person.
I had no idea. This completely changes my view of the UK and the world suddenly seems much darker.
People's political views are generally interwoven with their notion of morality and in the case of the religious, that morality is informed by their religion. The idea that you can separate religion and politics is misguided at best.
Also, even if you remove religion something else will surely take its place. It seems that notions of aggressive conventionality and "crush the unclean" are somewhat baked into a percentage of society, and I definitely think the really hostile climate of the pandemic has added evidence to this theory. There's always going to be a nasty, moralistic, curtain-twitcher segment of society no matter what name or organisation they give it. Sometimes they hide behind religion, sometimes they hide behind politics, sometimes it's another label entirely but what they all have in common is an excessive bias when it comes to the emotion of disgust.
I'm certainly not anti-religious (I'm no atheist myself), but I'm very anti-moral crusading against the business of consenting adults whatever form it takes.
I'm certainly not anti-religious (I'm no atheist myself), but I'm very anti-moral crusading against the business of consenting adults whatever form it takes.
The Unholy Trinity: State, Church and the Market. Despite the common belief to the contrary, they can never be truly separated. They're only distinct in the sense a continuous multimodal distribution has "distinct" modes - the boundaries are fuzzy. Ultimately, they all serve the goal of social coordination, and they all work with means of coercing people to do things for other people.
It's not the political leadership, it's the financial levers. Visa and Mastercard, specifically.
Yes, there's an overlap there, but your use of the expression "a ban on religion in the political space" highlights the problem. To frame it first as a political problem in the sense of political parties and professional politicians misses where the harm is being done; and to expand the definition of "political space" in your ban to include private financial operators would ban religion entirely.
And that's also not possible to do while calling yourself a free country.
Yes, there's an overlap there, but your use of the expression "a ban on religion in the political space" highlights the problem. To frame it first as a political problem in the sense of political parties and professional politicians misses where the harm is being done; and to expand the definition of "political space" in your ban to include private financial operators would ban religion entirely.
And that's also not possible to do while calling yourself a free country.
> Is it really such a mystery?
Powerful "Blame your political opponents" move and damn those Chesterton fences.
On a more serious note, it is not just porn and it's all about gene survival.
Men who do not care about the sexual freedom of their partners tend to got the way of Dodo. (for obvious reasons).
But I grant you that they may a live a more pleasant and relaxed life.
Powerful "Blame your political opponents" move and damn those Chesterton fences.
On a more serious note, it is not just porn and it's all about gene survival.
Men who do not care about the sexual freedom of their partners tend to got the way of Dodo. (for obvious reasons).
But I grant you that they may a live a more pleasant and relaxed life.
> Men who do not care about the sexual freedom of their partners tend to got the way of Dodo.
I can't speak for others, but my partner and I have a monogamous relationship because we like each other. We don't need government coercion.
(edited to make it sound less ominous)
I can't speak for others, but my partner and I have a monogamous relationship because we like each other. We don't need government coercion.
(edited to make it sound less ominous)
As long as there is an expectation of content providers doing porn, most content creators will shy away of being part of the platform. Their own response to the news published by Bloomberg includes this line:
> Creators will continue to be allowed to post content containing nudity as long as it is consistent with our Acceptable Use Policy.
>These changes are to comply with the requests of our banking partners and payout providers.[1]
I do think OnlyFans has a lot of potential with the features it offers: It combines the core functionality important for content creators of youtube, instagram and patreon. That is, except for discovery, which is notoriously bad.
[1]https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/19/onlyfans-bans-explicit-con...
> Creators will continue to be allowed to post content containing nudity as long as it is consistent with our Acceptable Use Policy.
>These changes are to comply with the requests of our banking partners and payout providers.[1]
I do think OnlyFans has a lot of potential with the features it offers: It combines the core functionality important for content creators of youtube, instagram and patreon. That is, except for discovery, which is notoriously bad.
[1]https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/19/onlyfans-bans-explicit-con...
Late to the game here, but...
OnlyFans is doing this allegedly because of a push by their payment processors and their investors.
I used to work for a company that did payment processing for high-risk sites (pornography and gambling), and before that I worked for a company that ran high-risk sites (pornography and gambling).
Those types of sites are high-risk because of a relatively large risk of fraud and chargebacks. Fraud and chargebacks are both bad things that cost both merchants and payment processors a lot of time and money, and they want to eliminate as much as possible.
This is why it's not as simple as a "Show me explicit content" setting - it's not about people seeing porn if they don't want to, it's about the banks not wanting to deal with the trouble that adult-focused sites tend to bring.
OnlyFans is doing this allegedly because of a push by their payment processors and their investors.
I used to work for a company that did payment processing for high-risk sites (pornography and gambling), and before that I worked for a company that ran high-risk sites (pornography and gambling).
Those types of sites are high-risk because of a relatively large risk of fraud and chargebacks. Fraud and chargebacks are both bad things that cost both merchants and payment processors a lot of time and money, and they want to eliminate as much as possible.
This is why it's not as simple as a "Show me explicit content" setting - it's not about people seeing porn if they don't want to, it's about the banks not wanting to deal with the trouble that adult-focused sites tend to bring.
Economically, some people get ashamed, embarrassed or outright offended that paying for sexually explicit material somehow makes that person property that owe them anything they like in return, so chargebacks in this sector are extremely high.
But more likely, it's OnlyFans' lax moderation[1] along with their recent attempt to raise capital have caused greater scrutiny by governments of illegal activity taking place on their platform.
[1] Quick summary by The Verge of a longer BBC article: https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632797/onlyfans-prohibi...
But more likely, it's OnlyFans' lax moderation[1] along with their recent attempt to raise capital have caused greater scrutiny by governments of illegal activity taking place on their platform.
[1] Quick summary by The Verge of a longer BBC article: https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632797/onlyfans-prohibi...
> Economically, some people get ashamed, embarrassed or outright offended that paying for sexually explicit material somehow makes that person property that owe them anything they like in return
That's quite the assumption.
> so chargebacks in this sector are extremely high.
Or,
1. Many of these transactions will be impulse decisions that are made during periods of reduced cognitive function so will have higher rates of regret than other content.
2. People might not want to admit that they made the purchase when their partner/guardians find out about the charge.
That's quite the assumption.
> so chargebacks in this sector are extremely high.
Or,
1. Many of these transactions will be impulse decisions that are made during periods of reduced cognitive function so will have higher rates of regret than other content.
2. People might not want to admit that they made the purchase when their partner/guardians find out about the charge.
A friend of a friend is a very very popular performer on onlyfans, and my friend noted that she is flush in amazon gift cards (at least when he told me this like 2 years ago). That seems to be the primary mode of payment because it looks innocuous in bank/credit card records.
Aren't there also issues of borderline fraudulent behavior from some of the creators? IOW Content producer claims they update on X or Y cadence, in reality they update a fraction of that time (or never) or the quality of content they produce is a fraction of what they use to get people to initially sign up for the service.
As to your side note as a gay guy I notice that even though people like to think we're really progressive these days, society really, really isn't.
The norm is still heavily enforced.
The norm is still heavily enforced.
Plus it's behind a login.
Also, the overwhelming majority of adults consume pornography. To pretend otherwise at this point is a ludicrous farce.
Source?
AFAIK the reason why OnlyFans is getting rid of porn is because they didnt moderate properly, so there were cases of CSAM and more and they were on the brink of having their payment providers cancel on them like what happened to pornhub a few months ago
And thats why payment processors should be a public utility
Payment processing being a public utility would result in less access to payment processing for services with a combination of high chargeback/fraud rates and opposition from some sections of the public
That's still stupid - surely the solution is to moderate better, not to literally kill the company.
The payment processors don't care about the health of the company, they care about their own survival. If a report is publicly released that there's a significant amount of CSAM material being sold on OnlyFans and they are knowingly facilitating it, the potential costs to them both in legal troubles and PR is substantially greater than the revenue they get from OnlyFans. Worst case scenario is OnlyFans goes bust and some new company comes along with a similar business model but better moderation.
>Why can't it just co-exist with other "acceptable" content?
Do you really think the critique of Only Fans is aimed at the consumers' experience, rather than contributing to the norm that it's OK for men to pay women to do what the men want?
Do you really think the critique of Only Fans is aimed at the consumers' experience, rather than contributing to the norm that it's OK for men to pay women to do what the men want?
It’s 100% ok for women to pay men to do what they want as well, what people make political is really just basic economics.
If you can flip it and it sounds right then you can’t have it both ways, that’s hypocritical.
If you can flip it and it sounds right then you can’t have it both ways, that’s hypocritical.
Is it not okay for women to sell their labor, services, performances, to anybody they choose to?
There are plenty of men with OnlyFans channels.
And there are plenty of women willing to pay other women to do things as well.
If PCCCI conformity and compliance can be done programmatically and the interfaces and tAPIs standardised, a uniform hardened virtual machine created commercially with multiple levels of support for complimentary up and down stream support / integration / development / consulting / services brokerage, isn't it possible to finance a very significant development in Linux security and privacy when some kind of economic opportunity like this comes along with just the right characteristics to attract sufficient attention and commitment?
Basically only just a image problem is keeping this industry from a huge amount of important infrastructure development.
Imagine that YouTube was to shut down next week.
how many startups do you think would be created to address that market?
How many uniquely innovative new ideas for attracting the former YT user base would be executed with lasting qualities that are beneficial to society and video producers and professional consumers?
Homogeneity is the developer crown / throne.
But homogeneous behemoth oligarchies prevent any serious development in any way capable of being subsumed by the oligarchs at marginal and not meaningful cost?
Can't any number, if a multitude is necessary then how about a multitude of global entrepreneurs less worried about their CVs appearance and capable of the work that we do for very much less for the same lifestyle, can't we find enough cut away / vanity intermediaries to take any public rap to enable the creation of a host of new companies in this sector all wanting to hire American talent and use American IP to develop the most advanced features for video sites serving this user base right now and just step in?
Basically only just a image problem is keeping this industry from a huge amount of important infrastructure development.
Imagine that YouTube was to shut down next week.
how many startups do you think would be created to address that market?
How many uniquely innovative new ideas for attracting the former YT user base would be executed with lasting qualities that are beneficial to society and video producers and professional consumers?
Homogeneity is the developer crown / throne.
But homogeneous behemoth oligarchies prevent any serious development in any way capable of being subsumed by the oligarchs at marginal and not meaningful cost?
Can't any number, if a multitude is necessary then how about a multitude of global entrepreneurs less worried about their CVs appearance and capable of the work that we do for very much less for the same lifestyle, can't we find enough cut away / vanity intermediaries to take any public rap to enable the creation of a host of new companies in this sector all wanting to hire American talent and use American IP to develop the most advanced features for video sites serving this user base right now and just step in?
Not at all. If someone told anyone I know they have a onlyfans, I can’t think of anyone who would assume anything other than porn
It is the same problem that Voat had. If you are are a platform that prioritizes minimal moderation in a market dominated by someone who doesn't, the primary reason to use your platform is because that content isn't allowed on the market leader.
Voat only became "Reddit for white supremacists" because Reddit was pushing many of those users off their platform. Only Fans only became "Patreon for sex work" because Patreon didn't want those users on their platform. Anyone who wasn't one of those groups was better off just sticking with Reddit and Patreon and that only became truer as the reputation became more and more ingrained with the platform's brand.
Voat only became "Reddit for white supremacists" because Reddit was pushing many of those users off their platform. Only Fans only became "Patreon for sex work" because Patreon didn't want those users on their platform. Anyone who wasn't one of those groups was better off just sticking with Reddit and Patreon and that only became truer as the reputation became more and more ingrained with the platform's brand.
It is the same problem that Voat had. If you are are a platform that prioritizes minimal moderation in a market dominated by someone who doesn't, the primary reason to use your platform is because that content isn't allowed on the market leader.
This seems like an opportunity, not a problem. Since most platforms simply don't get traction at all, you have something. It's opportunity that involves problems (or "challenges") but you've gotten somewhere on the market chessboard. And most "growth hacks" present challenges.
That said, it's hard to believe that onlyfans wasn't aware they were effective a porn site. Maybe Voat was more naive since white supremacy doesn't monetize the way porn does but I'd be skeptical there too. The Internet has a zillion places for any population to go so there isn't a single "off-brand" that a undesirable population X is fated to go to.
This seems like an opportunity, not a problem. Since most platforms simply don't get traction at all, you have something. It's opportunity that involves problems (or "challenges") but you've gotten somewhere on the market chessboard. And most "growth hacks" present challenges.
That said, it's hard to believe that onlyfans wasn't aware they were effective a porn site. Maybe Voat was more naive since white supremacy doesn't monetize the way porn does but I'd be skeptical there too. The Internet has a zillion places for any population to go so there isn't a single "off-brand" that a undesirable population X is fated to go to.
> Maybe Voat was more naive since white supremacy doesn't monetize the way porn does but I'd be skeptical there too.
Have a look at the front page of Voat. I’m not even gonna check it myself because I’ve seen enough. I guarantee you that 50% or more of everything on the front page of Voat at any moment will be very obviously white supremacist type content. They know. And by letting those people dominate their platform for so long, they are effectively saying that white supremacists are welcome on their site, and that they are ok with giving a platform to people who are looking to spread hate against others based on ethnicity and nationality.
Have a look at the front page of Voat. I’m not even gonna check it myself because I’ve seen enough. I guarantee you that 50% or more of everything on the front page of Voat at any moment will be very obviously white supremacist type content. They know. And by letting those people dominate their platform for so long, they are effectively saying that white supremacists are welcome on their site, and that they are ok with giving a platform to people who are looking to spread hate against others based on ethnicity and nationality.
> Have a look at the front page of Voat. I’m not even gonna check it myself because I’ve seen enough.
Voat shut down last year (I actually wasn't aware until reading this thread and trying to check the frontpage)
Voat shut down last year (I actually wasn't aware until reading this thread and trying to check the frontpage)
A site which calls itself Voat and uses Voat branding is back under the domain voat.xyz and it has a higher percentage of extremist content than the old Voat (if you can believe that).
It doesn't appear to be ran on the same codebase or the same database as the "old" Voat, but it can essentially be considered "back".
It doesn't appear to be ran on the same codebase or the same database as the "old" Voat, but it can essentially be considered "back".
I have tried to verify every single time in the past when people on HN have pointed at a reddit alternative or subreddit with claims of extremist content, and every single time I have found nothing. When I point this out I have gotten replies (and downvotes) that the content is actually there but hidden in dead comments, which then archive.org do not display. It always leaves me without any way to verify the claim.
This time the site above did actually have some content that match the description. Looking at the top 10 on the front page, 8 is anti-vaccination discussions and 2 is anti-jew. That is significant more than any of the other sites I have looked at, and for once I can verify what the person claim to be true.
(As usual people demonstrate how appreciated independent verification is).
This time the site above did actually have some content that match the description. Looking at the top 10 on the front page, 8 is anti-vaccination discussions and 2 is anti-jew. That is significant more than any of the other sites I have looked at, and for once I can verify what the person claim to be true.
(As usual people demonstrate how appreciated independent verification is).
[deleted]
Agreed. It's an attempt to censor indy media, when there's just as much extremist content on the mainstream sites.
But that site doesn't accept new users. So in that way it's not different from the old Voat.
Ah, so it has. Great!
Voat.co was started by reddit altright. It was less racist when it was on reddit. Mostly memes and the racist stuff was, for the most part, modded down and few and far between.
>This seems like an opportunity, not a problem.
It is both. If money is the primary driver you should simply accept the opportunity and pivot. However I would guess that the people who founded, worked at, and invested in these companies before the brand change were probably a little uneasy about that "growth hack". I know I would leave any company that to pivoted to white supremacy or porn. The former for personal moral reasons and the latter because our societal morality creates a stigma that isn't worth dealing with.
Plus this content is generally kicked off the original platform for some reason other than morals. It is usually because users are abandoning the platform or other companies are refusing to work with them. Embracing this content can therefore result in headaches like payment processors or cloud providers refusing to work with you.
It is both. If money is the primary driver you should simply accept the opportunity and pivot. However I would guess that the people who founded, worked at, and invested in these companies before the brand change were probably a little uneasy about that "growth hack". I know I would leave any company that to pivoted to white supremacy or porn. The former for personal moral reasons and the latter because our societal morality creates a stigma that isn't worth dealing with.
Plus this content is generally kicked off the original platform for some reason other than morals. It is usually because users are abandoning the platform or other companies are refusing to work with them. Embracing this content can therefore result in headaches like payment processors or cloud providers refusing to work with you.
IDK... if money is all that concerns you, I'd say stay away from porn, or white supremacy. Not much money in being a pariah, usually. As you say, employees may leave. Investors may leave. Banks may try to drop you.
...if money is all that concerns you, I'd say stay away from porn, or white supremacy. Not much money in being a pariah, usually.
The amount of money in porn overall is vast, generally estimated in the billions.[1] Some pariahs get a lot of money.
I'd agree on white supremacy, still.
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/porn-could-bigger-economic-in...
The amount of money in porn overall is vast, generally estimated in the billions.[1] Some pariahs get a lot of money.
I'd agree on white supremacy, still.
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/porn-could-bigger-economic-in...
Just because the market is big doesn't mean it's easy to get a slice. The food industry is absolutely huge and also very brutal. Margins are razor thin and people get crushed constantly.
[deleted]
New users can't register at Voat currently, so it seems kind of dead anyway.
Well I have a page on facebook called Only. Fans.
And it's only fans
And it's only fans
Unfortunately, your page is very difficult to find on FB via search.
So, is it electric fans, handheld fans, or both?
https://www.facebook.com/onlyfansss
Unfortunately when I first set it up, I wasn't concerned about visibility haha. But while it's all fans, most of the content is heavily electric fan related
Unfortunately when I first set it up, I wasn't concerned about visibility haha. But while it's all fans, most of the content is heavily electric fan related
Liked. Cannot wait for fan photos, videos and other fan related content on my wall. It will be MUCH better than what usually lands there.
I really miss the "old days" when the internet was full of single purpose, dumb-if-you-think-too-much-about-it, hilarious sites (crappy taxidermy, ThatWillBuffOut.com, graphjam, etc.) and this is as close as we can get these days. Only. Fans.
I really miss the "old days" when the internet was full of single purpose, dumb-if-you-think-too-much-about-it, hilarious sites (crappy taxidermy, ThatWillBuffOut.com, graphjam, etc.) and this is as close as we can get these days. Only. Fans.
This is gold! Well done :)
It reminds me of a "Ken M" post, but like a joke that just keeps working, even if you tell variants of it over and over.
It reminds me of a "Ken M" post, but like a joke that just keeps working, even if you tell variants of it over and over.
Well King Aaron, have you considered owning a castle, starting a sex cult, declaring a new country on a private island or all three?
Is King Aaron really that Jeffery Epstein? Is he alive?
The trifecta, obviously!
Patreon was able to change that though.
Yes,there was a time when Patreon meant porn. But now a lot of mainstream artists, YouTubers, etc. using Patreon.
Yes,there was a time when Patreon meant porn. But now a lot of mainstream artists, YouTubers, etc. using Patreon.
When was that? I've been supporting people on Patreon since 2014 and it's basically been the same mix of independent comic artists and Youtubers the entire time. I know there was a ruckus when they kicked porn off the site, but I never knew they were on there in the first place.
Is it not a porn site? I thought it was a porn site.
When I first heard about it, people were comparing it to Patreon. Then it became porn because of some weird loophole in how credit card companies work. Credit cards and pornography is its whole massive side discussion.
I really thought it was meant to be Patreon for Porn. I've never heard about it an any context other than porn. Until now, if you'd asked me, I'd have confidently stated it was conceived as a porn site. This is truly news to me that it wasn't meant to be a porn site.
I feel like this is what Twitch is also fighting against. Twitch started slowly becoming erotic streaming platform.
But Twitch is already established as a billion-dollar company (acquired, no less) providing SFW streaming services. I could understand staying out of the porn market in their case. But OnlyFans is _only_ associated with erotic content.
It's corporate suicide and it makes zero sense that they aren't fighting it. It's a valuable market, it's ethically sound and they are making the world a better place by having a safe place for adult performers to sell their services.
It's corporate suicide and it makes zero sense that they aren't fighting it. It's a valuable market, it's ethically sound and they are making the world a better place by having a safe place for adult performers to sell their services.
They’ve been pushing hard for celebrities for a while. But TBH I’m not sure what more you get here in some picture-based fan club than you’ll find on Instagram.
Anything newsworthy will likely get reposted online somewhere within the hour anyway.
Otherwise it's just a PG13 version of itself with similar sexual undertones.
Anything newsworthy will likely get reposted online somewhere within the hour anyway.
Otherwise it's just a PG13 version of itself with similar sexual undertones.
My understanding of it was purely regarding porn. Or, as an open platform focusing on paid user generated content which naturally was a cesspool for porn. Interesting enough, after a debate about would you date a girl who had an OF account, I went decided to visit browse site last week and couldn't find anything other than highly sexually provocative but legit sounding channels. Mostly of the fitness type because yoga pants and other form fitting attire. But, I actually found no porn. I suppose you have to know what to search for, or who you want to follow. I never saw any content because I didn't pay for any.
My understanding is that you get the porn after subscribing to a certain creator, but I haven't really even been to the site, so my view might be completely off.
They're probably not promoting the pornographic content because they don't want that to be their brand. The way to end up on the porn is to be following someone on another platform who is either already posting dirty content on that platform and now wants to monetize it or by following someone who is popular for some other reason but then realizes they can get a lot more money out of their fanbase by selling nudes.
I’m surprised too. It’s like using pornhub to post SFW tech tip videos.
There actually was quite a bit of SFW content on their before the big purge. Quite a few people choosing to use it as a weird alternative to YouTube for their non-porn gaming stuff and also using it reupload/mirror content from YouTube.
It was always weird but also kind of fascinating to dive in to.
It was always weird but also kind of fascinating to dive in to.
Pornhub was actually decent for sports back in the day because they didn't do content ID
Bait and switch.
Even if they lose the bulk of their customers, they will still have a bigger network than if they had started with the same platform, but without the porn.
Even if they lose the bulk of their customers, they will still have a bigger network than if they had started with the same platform, but without the porn.
That hasn't really worked in practice. I think of Tumblr which basically stopped all growth and innovation the moment they banned porn.
The company is probably assuming they can pivot, and maybe they can, but I doubt it
The company is probably assuming they can pivot, and maybe they can, but I doubt it
Sure, but its a much smaller network than they had when they applied for financing at their desired valuation. Why would I give them a valuation of a billion dollars if they suddenly lose some large (by some estimates 60+ %) portion of their income. I think this begins their slow demise.
[deleted]
Is it really their own fault for not doing marketing?
They were open to have porn on the platform, and then it just swarmed to them. People did the marketing for them.
There’s non-porn content on PornHub too, but much like OnlyFans that’s a neat trivia fact and statistically meaningless to their bottom line.
Actually I'd have to say a good marketing department. I think it was part of a long-term plan to be relevant to broad audiences, and come out through the woodwork already strong.
Sounds like a great opportunity for another player to step in and fill the vacuum, given that OnlyFans already proved there's a market for this. Just like Vine vs TikTok.
Also, weird that they would give up an entire market because of prude payment providers. Are these providers from Afghanistan? They should not have that much power over their customers.
Maybe a crypto spin off could work.
Also, weird that they would give up an entire market because of prude payment providers. Are these providers from Afghanistan? They should not have that much power over their customers.
Maybe a crypto spin off could work.
Anyone who does will face the same pressure from payout vendors.
No one corporate wants to be actively involved in paying sex workers.
No one corporate wants to be actively involved in paying sex workers.
Is this still true? Porn sites seem to have no problems selling ad space, although it may not be to major brands. I suspect that eventually even that will change. How many people are really so put off by human sexuality that they'll refuse to buy a product that advertises on a porn site? How many of those people are going to porn sites to see those ads in the first place?
I think that slowly corporations are going to dismiss the loud puritanical few that complain about it and that those who do will find advertising their brands along side porn is extremely profitable. Corporations have been using sex to sell their products for ages specifically because it's so effective. It's just a matter of time until they start being honest about it.
I think that slowly corporations are going to dismiss the loud puritanical few that complain about it and that those who do will find advertising their brands along side porn is extremely profitable. Corporations have been using sex to sell their products for ages specifically because it's so effective. It's just a matter of time until they start being honest about it.
The original article in Variety[0] there’s a quote that specifically states “complying with our banks’ and payout vendors’ policies.” as the reason for the change. This seems to allude that the direct payments to the sex workers themselves are what were at-odds with those policies.
0. https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/onlyfans-ban-pornograp...
0. https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/onlyfans-ban-pornograp...
Seems like the heads of banks and payment processors themselves may be the ones with puritanical views. Time for companies to push for and support alternatives (including cryptocurrency) to free themselves from those in the financial industry who are holding them back from profit and progress. If they are so entrenched and powerful that it's impossible for a new company to meet the current needs of the market than the government has to step in. Maybe it's time to break some of these old financial companies up or strip away some of the regulations they've had put into place to keep their monopoly position
I've heard that it's generally the Federal government and anti-porn groups that pressure the payment processors. Remember how PornHub was accused of hosting all kinds of stuff, and then Visa and Mastercard stopped processing payments until changes were made? That was because anti-porn groups had applied pressure.
https://www.salon.com/2020/12/30/the-anti-porn-religious-lob...
https://www.salon.com/2020/12/30/the-anti-porn-religious-lob...
I haven't seen much evidence for federal pressure on payment processors directly. The article seems to be mostly about pornhub's over-reaction in response to the over-reaction of payment processors who pandered to the anti-porn groups.
The government really did screw over websites like Craigslist and Backpage, but that was due to changes which would have made the site operators responsible for the content their users post which I don't think would have an impact on someone like mastercard.
I suspect the payment processors must support the anti-porn agenda since I doubt they really fear that any appreciable number of people will resort to using cash only for the rest of their lives in protest. It's entirely within Visa's power to say "If you don't like porn don't pay for it, but it isn't our place to police what free people can do with their money. Our role is simply to facilitate any legal transaction. If you feel something shouldn't be legal speak to your representatives and change the laws"
The government really did screw over websites like Craigslist and Backpage, but that was due to changes which would have made the site operators responsible for the content their users post which I don't think would have an impact on someone like mastercard.
I suspect the payment processors must support the anti-porn agenda since I doubt they really fear that any appreciable number of people will resort to using cash only for the rest of their lives in protest. It's entirely within Visa's power to say "If you don't like porn don't pay for it, but it isn't our place to police what free people can do with their money. Our role is simply to facilitate any legal transaction. If you feel something shouldn't be legal speak to your representatives and change the laws"
FOSTA/SESTA has been cited as an incident of the Federal government working against sex workers being normalized, at least in the realm of payments and digital outlets.
I think the difference is with porn sites the actors have signed contracts and gone through several legal requirements to ensure a "safe" enviorment. They also generally don't do the more extreme porn fetishes that are illegal in some countries (Think rape/incest roleplay. But the list is massive.)
Onlyfans and sites similar often attract the small fetish sex workers because the demand isn't big enough for a major company to pick up on them on a regular basis but the demand is enough they can make serious money freelancing.
Onlyfans and sites similar often attract the small fetish sex workers because the demand isn't big enough for a major company to pick up on them on a regular basis but the demand is enough they can make serious money freelancing.
Just use cryptocurrencies.
Sounds like a market opportunity for new, non-prudish payment provider.
The problem has never been payment providers' morality. Porn payments come with significantly higher chargeback rates than traditional payments. If someone can find a way to stop red-handed husbands from claiming credit card theft when the wife checks the bill, there's a market opportunity.
The vendor already eats that risk though, right? Chargeback fees cover the credit card company against that risk.
The problem from the credit card companies' point of view is that "I got caught by my wife" isn't a valid chargeback reason, so the vendor can dispute the chargeback, have every incentive to do so, and that's not a fight Visa want to get into.
The problem from the credit card companies' point of view is that "I got caught by my wife" isn't a valid chargeback reason, so the vendor can dispute the chargeback, have every incentive to do so, and that's not a fight Visa want to get into.
Of course the reason given isn't "I got caught by my wife", it's "I don't know how that charge got there, it must be ... fraud".
Payment processors are required to maintain a certain chargeback rate with the card companies and so that risk gets passed on to the merchants.
This is all exceedingly well documented and a Google search away if you'd like to learn the inner workings of it.
Payment processors are required to maintain a certain chargeback rate with the card companies and so that risk gets passed on to the merchants.
This is all exceedingly well documented and a Google search away if you'd like to learn the inner workings of it.
100% correct, it's sad that we still use hopelessly insecure credit cards, a better system would have non-repudiation built in, charge backs from the customer claiming "I didnt authorise that" would go away
Unfortunately, this would incentivize bad behavior on the part of disreputable merchants. Dark ui patterns would abound in some parts of the internet.
That's already in the works / up and running...
You're looking for cumrocket . io (no, not joking) and their own Token Cumrocket / $Cummies which is on BSC (Binance Smart Chain).
You're looking for cumrocket . io (no, not joking) and their own Token Cumrocket / $Cummies which is on BSC (Binance Smart Chain).
Probably showing my prudish tendencies here, but that is too disgusting to work branding wise.
You don’t have to like it to love it, where money is involved.
“The live CUMROCKET price today is $0.053191 USD with a 24-hour trading volume of $4,789,810 USD. CUMROCKET is up 61.03% in the last 24 hours.”
“The live CUMROCKET price today is $0.053191 USD with a 24-hour trading volume of $4,789,810 USD. CUMROCKET is up 61.03% in the last 24 hours.”
I read that sex-workers have lost their livelihood during the pandemic due to lockdowns and have become more vulnerable. Then I read the interview of Aella, A OnlyFans creator making 5-figures on IndieHackers[1].
I always felt porn was an exploitative business so was never into it, But I gained respect for OnlyFans as a platform because it enabled people to move from dangerous, risky work to relatively safe work. As with any content platform, I understand that only perhaps top 5% might make sustainable business out of it but still it's a choice available.
Now they've blown it, In order to chase after scale OnlyFans has decided to sacrifice their original customers. Fans of those music artists who are supposedly joining now should inform them that OnlyFans is robbing the livelihood and would be pushing many back to dangerous physical-sex work.
[1] https://www.indiehackers.com/podcast/211-aella-savannah-solo
I always felt porn was an exploitative business so was never into it, But I gained respect for OnlyFans as a platform because it enabled people to move from dangerous, risky work to relatively safe work. As with any content platform, I understand that only perhaps top 5% might make sustainable business out of it but still it's a choice available.
Now they've blown it, In order to chase after scale OnlyFans has decided to sacrifice their original customers. Fans of those music artists who are supposedly joining now should inform them that OnlyFans is robbing the livelihood and would be pushing many back to dangerous physical-sex work.
[1] https://www.indiehackers.com/podcast/211-aella-savannah-solo
Is everyone else who isn't running a porn subscription company also robbing potential porn creators of a livelihood or is this a helping people a little is worse than doing nothing type situation?
Few artists want to be associated with that by now. If people present their onlyfans, customers expect nude pictures.
Article states that OnlyFans took this decision because big names from music and other industries are joining them.
This article? Didn't read anything like that although I just skimmed it. Be that as it may, people often associate onlyfans with sex work.
Aella already had a monetized following prior to onlyfans. She is not representative of the potential of a new content creator.
> I gained respect for OnlyFans as a platform because it enabled people to move from dangerous, risky work to relatively safe work
What about not getting into this and, thus, not being exposed to any risks? Sex-work nowadays is the matter of choice, it's not how it used to be in pre-internet era.
What about not getting into this and, thus, not being exposed to any risks? Sex-work nowadays is the matter of choice, it's not how it used to be in pre-internet era.
> What about not getting into this and, thus, not being exposed to any risks? Sex-work nowadays is the matter of choice, it's not how it used to be in pre-internet era.
Unfortunately it's often the only choice, If not we wouldn't be still finding women from poor countries dead in locked shipping containers in the harbors of developed countries.
Unfortunately it's often the only choice, If not we wouldn't be still finding women from poor countries dead in locked shipping containers in the harbors of developed countries.
I meet many women who could easily move into sex-work, but they don't, they have tiring job which pays pennies, but they know that in the end this hard working is much better choice. Let's stop playing on victim note, almost everybody has a choice and in case of OF it is always a choice.
That has nothing to do with Only Fans, though. I wish we could have a grown-up discussion without someone shutting it down with “but trafficking” (quite often from a right-wing nutter who does not give a fig about the people in question, though I am not saying that you are). Trafficking and exploitation are bad, but it’s not unique to porn, and you can have porn without it.
I agree, trafficking is marginal problem nowadays, except maybe children trafficking, but this is totally different story. Prostitution today is a choice and, in developed countries, does not even have that much social stigma.
This is going to be corporate suicide on a greater scale than Tumblr's policy.
Just a note that Tumblr's anti-porn policy has been fairly leaky and users basically adapted to it. After a decline, the site now hosts nearly as much porn as previously.
The problem is that onlyfans has a much bigger spotlight on it. So yeah, one wonders how people justify just killing their product.
Just a note that Tumblr's anti-porn policy has been fairly leaky and users basically adapted to it. After a decline, the site now hosts nearly as much porn as previously.
The problem is that onlyfans has a much bigger spotlight on it. So yeah, one wonders how people justify just killing their product.
Even still they went from selling for a billion to being sold for three million. Maybe not entirely fair to blame it purely on the anti-porn push, as the general trends of social media platforms isn’t particularly kind to most companies, but it sure didn’t help.
But agreed that I didn’t know OnlyFans had any meaningful non-porn content. And the business sense in this seems 100% geared towards a short term payout with no regard for what happens afterward.
But agreed that I didn’t know OnlyFans had any meaningful non-porn content. And the business sense in this seems 100% geared towards a short term payout with no regard for what happens afterward.
This is the least of their problems and I am amazed none of their executives is not yet in jail:
"The children selling explicit videos on OnlyFans"
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57255983
"The children selling explicit videos on OnlyFans"
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57255983
No verification will be bulletproof, and persistent people will occasionally get around it. I'm not sure what responsibility OnlyFans has beyond taking reasonable measures to prevent circumventing verification. The article mentions someone using their older sister's license as verification. Presumably they look similar. And that's somehow OnlyFan's fault? There's no reason why the executives would have any sort of personal liability.
The anti-vice authoritarians will always come after any lucrative porn enterprise with these sensationalized stories. I'm surprised there are still people out there that eat it up.
The anti-vice authoritarians will always come after any lucrative porn enterprise with these sensationalized stories. I'm surprised there are still people out there that eat it up.
In the case of child pornography the law - in many countries - explicitly makes it the platforms responsibility.
Read your comment again and realize what you are saying. This thread has more than 800 comments on the different online billing strategies and payment providers...Here you have an extensive well researched article of the BBC, with two different law enforcement officers confirming this is happening and you are arguing its not their responsibility? Who is the enabler here?
> Here you have an extensive well researched article of the BBC, with two different law enforcement officers confirming this is happening
Why would the BBC or the police be worthy of trust? It’s ironic to trust their word when the article goes over the ways the site tries to verify identity and hence age, and they seem reasonable, far more reasonable than trusting the police because they’re the police.
I’m not going to post up my passport but I didn’t come down in the last shower.
Why would the BBC or the police be worthy of trust? It’s ironic to trust their word when the article goes over the ways the site tries to verify identity and hence age, and they seem reasonable, far more reasonable than trusting the police because they’re the police.
I’m not going to post up my passport but I didn’t come down in the last shower.
If you have a point to make, just make it. I have no interest in trying to anticipate your argument.
My point is that they are subject to this:
https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/the-child-protection-and-o...
Try to use the excuse under a judge that the children are the ones fooling your obvious flawed registration system to see how that will go.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/the-child-protection-and-o...
Try to use the excuse under a judge that the children are the ones fooling your obvious flawed registration system to see how that will go.
The question of liability for the site given reasonable verification measures is still an open question. For example, Tracy Lords was a popular porn star of the 80s until she outed herself as having been underage in her films. The FBI investigated the porn industry and no one was found liable as she used a fake ID and the producers had it on file. The idea that there is endless liability for producers when someone circumvents their verification just isn't true.
> The FBI investigated the porn industry and no one was found liable as she used a fake ID and the producers had it on file.
WHOA! That's not true.
At least one of her fellow "actors" went to jail for it and I think some of the staff only avoided jail by cutting plea bargains but still wound up with felonies.
There is a reason why so many people were angry when Traci Lords started getting "legitimate" roles after having destroyed a lot of people's lives.
Child porn is a strict liability crime in most cases of the US. Yeah, the justice system generally applies some common sense (ie. not convicting two 16 year olds sending each other selfies), but that is completely at the whim of the system and doesn't always hold true.
WHOA! That's not true.
At least one of her fellow "actors" went to jail for it and I think some of the staff only avoided jail by cutting plea bargains but still wound up with felonies.
There is a reason why so many people were angry when Traci Lords started getting "legitimate" roles after having destroyed a lot of people's lives.
Child porn is a strict liability crime in most cases of the US. Yeah, the justice system generally applies some common sense (ie. not convicting two 16 year olds sending each other selfies), but that is completely at the whim of the system and doesn't always hold true.
This doesn't seem accurate according to a cursory search. While I was incorrect that no one was prosecuted for it, it seems that charged were eventually dropped after the court ruled that strict liability in this case would violate the first amendment[1]
>Our reading of the relevant Supreme Court opinions, particularly Smith v. California, suggests that the first amendment does not permit the imposition of criminal sanctions on the basis of strict liability where doing so would seriously chill protected speech. While Congress may take steps to punish severely those who knowingly subject minors to sexual exploitation, and even those who commit such abuse recklessly or negligently, it may not impose very serious criminal sanctions on those who have diligently investigated the matter and formed a reasonable good-faith belief that they are engaged in activities protected by the first amendment.
[1]https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/858...
>Our reading of the relevant Supreme Court opinions, particularly Smith v. California, suggests that the first amendment does not permit the imposition of criminal sanctions on the basis of strict liability where doing so would seriously chill protected speech. While Congress may take steps to punish severely those who knowingly subject minors to sexual exploitation, and even those who commit such abuse recklessly or negligently, it may not impose very serious criminal sanctions on those who have diligently investigated the matter and formed a reasonable good-faith belief that they are engaged in activities protected by the first amendment.
[1]https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/858...
1996: Producer conviction upheld
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1996/01/05/Conviction-upheld-in...
> Gottesman was found guilty of violating the 1977 Child Sexual Exploitation Act, but appealed the lower court verdict all the way to U. S. Supreme Court, claiming that he should not be held liable for using underage girls if they lied about their age.
Yet this is also commented from 2011:
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/a-short-history-of-undera...
> No one, including Lords or her scene partners, ever went to jail over the scandal, but it led to several court cases and tougher laws regulating the adult industry.
"Never went to jail" does not exclude "Cut a deal but still wound up with a felony conviction". However, apparently my memory was faulty about someone going to jail.
Unfortunately, everything about the case is old enough that it doesn't appear well in search engines. And that's without the fact that everything is going to be drowned out in search engines by being proximate to "traci lords".
> Gottesman was found guilty of violating the 1977 Child Sexual Exploitation Act, but appealed the lower court verdict all the way to U. S. Supreme Court, claiming that he should not be held liable for using underage girls if they lied about their age.
Yet this is also commented from 2011:
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/a-short-history-of-undera...
> No one, including Lords or her scene partners, ever went to jail over the scandal, but it led to several court cases and tougher laws regulating the adult industry.
"Never went to jail" does not exclude "Cut a deal but still wound up with a felony conviction". However, apparently my memory was faulty about someone going to jail.
Unfortunately, everything about the case is old enough that it doesn't appear well in search engines. And that's without the fact that everything is going to be drowned out in search engines by being proximate to "traci lords".
"The guidelines for enforcing these laws require producers of sexually explicit material to obtain proof of age for every model they shoot, and retain those records. Federal inspectors may at any time launch inspections of these records and prosecute any infraction."
From the article...I am also amazed at the downvotes.
======================
Schools have shared anonymous reports of pupils using the site, including a 16-year-old who boasted to her careers adviser about the amount of money she made on the site, and showed off her "exuberant" spending on Instagram.
Underage creators and users of the site include victims of prior sexual abuse and those with mental health issues and suicidal thoughts, according to Childline counsellor notes. UK police forces say children have complained about their images being uploaded to the site without consent, and one 17-year-old reported being blackmailed.
Missing children are appearing in OnlyFans videos, according to a US watchdog, which also says it has received reports of child sexual exploitation.
"It is increasingly clear that OnlyFans is being used by children," says chief constable Simon Bailey, the UK's child protection lead.
"The company is not doing enough to put in place the safeguards that prevent children exploiting the opportunity to generate money, but also for children to be exploited."
In a statement, OnlyFans says it could not respond specifically to the anonymous reports we were told about without the account details.
======================
======================
Schools have shared anonymous reports of pupils using the site, including a 16-year-old who boasted to her careers adviser about the amount of money she made on the site, and showed off her "exuberant" spending on Instagram.
Underage creators and users of the site include victims of prior sexual abuse and those with mental health issues and suicidal thoughts, according to Childline counsellor notes. UK police forces say children have complained about their images being uploaded to the site without consent, and one 17-year-old reported being blackmailed.
Missing children are appearing in OnlyFans videos, according to a US watchdog, which also says it has received reports of child sexual exploitation.
"It is increasingly clear that OnlyFans is being used by children," says chief constable Simon Bailey, the UK's child protection lead.
"The company is not doing enough to put in place the safeguards that prevent children exploiting the opportunity to generate money, but also for children to be exploited."
In a statement, OnlyFans says it could not respond specifically to the anonymous reports we were told about without the account details.
======================
Honestly I don't see what the problem is with a 17 year old getting some money for posting pics... That's a lot of money they can earn.
Claims about this "damaging" them seem about as speculative as 1960s claims that homosexual behaviour is damaging.
Claims about this "damaging" them seem about as speculative as 1960s claims that homosexual behaviour is damaging.
OK, let's say that 17 is fine. What about just a year younger? Maybe only 6 months? As a society(well, mostly), it was decided to draw it at 18. Where do YOU draw the line?
I don't draw it at age, I draw it at coercion. If someone is pressuring someone else into uploading nakes pics that's bad, age would just be an aggravating factor in the badness when deciding how much to punish.
While the idea of a six year old uploading naked pics makes me extremely uncomfortable I think that's a parenting issue (something has probably gone very wrong and that's what needs fixing, not the symptom of posting online), not something to be governed at the payment processor level.
While the idea of a six year old uploading naked pics makes me extremely uncomfortable I think that's a parenting issue (something has probably gone very wrong and that's what needs fixing, not the symptom of posting online), not something to be governed at the payment processor level.
Well really, I think it's the responsibility of the parents. In an ideal world, a parent can decide when their child is mentally ready to engage in an industry like that, and can also decide where the line is safe (teases? partial nudity? full softcore? hardcore? intense BDSM?)
The reality of course though is that not every child has a responsible parent, and many children have parents who would happily exploit their children to make a couple thousand extra dollars (which really sucks, but it's also just how the world is). So as a general legal policy, putting the burden on parents may lead to substantially more harm of children.
The reality of course though is that not every child has a responsible parent, and many children have parents who would happily exploit their children to make a couple thousand extra dollars (which really sucks, but it's also just how the world is). So as a general legal policy, putting the burden on parents may lead to substantially more harm of children.
In my theoretical system, I would implement a testing process that determines if a person is mentally competent to make legal, financial, contractual and overall life decisions. The courts in the U.S. already do this under specific circumstances and can give a child limited recognition as an adult and that is determined entirely by a judge. I would just take it a step further and have a certification that would be noted on a state ID card rather than depending on specific legal circumstances. Generalizing a persons capabilities to make such decisions by biological age is problematic. Some people are not ready to make life altering decisions at their states/regions age of majority whereas some people are prepared to make such decisions sooner than others. This would not be perfect, but probably more scientific of a process than basing a decision on biological age. Who creates the test? Likely a panel of clinical psychologists, biologists, lawyers. Who administers the test? Schools for free, some job sites paid by employer, lawyers for a fee.
So what happens if a person never passes the test at any point in their life?
What happens when X or Y minority group claims the test is biased against them?
Also your claim is that an intelligent person who could perform well on an examination wouldn't also make risky sexual decisions when they are young?
What happens when X or Y minority group claims the test is biased against them?
Also your claim is that an intelligent person who could perform well on an examination wouldn't also make risky sexual decisions when they are young?
So what happens if a person never passes the test at any point in their life?
Good question. Perhaps a more in-depth analysis of the person would be required to understand why they are not passing the test.
What happens when X or Y minority group claims the test is biased against them?
This is an existing pattern and I would defer to the legal system to mirror the existing processes. This pattern is replete throughout all intersections of society and government.
Also your claim is that an intelligent person who could perform well on an examination wouldn't also make risky sexual decisions when they are young?
I never said intelligent. I said "if a person is mentally competent to make legal, financial, contractual and overall life decisions". These things are not directly tied to intelligence alone and intelligence can be interpreted to mean many different things. The test would be written and reviewed yearly by clinical psychologists, biologists and lawyers. The current process for this that already exists depends entirely on a judge which is just a more experienced lawyer and a single persons judgement call that may be biased by their personal beliefs. I believe my suggestion would be a vast improvement over the existing system and would make it easier for kids put into precarious situations to move forward in life rather than sitting in emergency foster care at the mercy of strangers if they don't actually require it.
I personally know of a few people including a close friend that went through this process. She was declared an adult at age 14 and was appointed guardianship over her brother as the legal guardian with full custody. She handled this perfectly but all of this was the decision of a single judge. This is of course not the same as legally being at the age of majority/consent. In my method, there would be certifications for different aspects of responsibility much like endorsements for a car or aircraft license. These would be endorsements on their state ID.
Good question. Perhaps a more in-depth analysis of the person would be required to understand why they are not passing the test.
What happens when X or Y minority group claims the test is biased against them?
This is an existing pattern and I would defer to the legal system to mirror the existing processes. This pattern is replete throughout all intersections of society and government.
Also your claim is that an intelligent person who could perform well on an examination wouldn't also make risky sexual decisions when they are young?
I never said intelligent. I said "if a person is mentally competent to make legal, financial, contractual and overall life decisions". These things are not directly tied to intelligence alone and intelligence can be interpreted to mean many different things. The test would be written and reviewed yearly by clinical psychologists, biologists and lawyers. The current process for this that already exists depends entirely on a judge which is just a more experienced lawyer and a single persons judgement call that may be biased by their personal beliefs. I believe my suggestion would be a vast improvement over the existing system and would make it easier for kids put into precarious situations to move forward in life rather than sitting in emergency foster care at the mercy of strangers if they don't actually require it.
I personally know of a few people including a close friend that went through this process. She was declared an adult at age 14 and was appointed guardianship over her brother as the legal guardian with full custody. She handled this perfectly but all of this was the decision of a single judge. This is of course not the same as legally being at the age of majority/consent. In my method, there would be certifications for different aspects of responsibility much like endorsements for a car or aircraft license. These would be endorsements on their state ID.
How does section 230 not cover this? They're just a platform not a publisher right?
Thanks for explaining what this is about. There are lots of sites our there where sex workers ply their trade, and as far as I can tell have been allowed to do so by the payment processors for literally decades. The dozens of caming sites for a start. OnlyFans being banned for it while other sites are doing it far more openly would be bizarre.
However those sites now all have strong 230 compliance regimes, and I gather OnlyFans doesn't. OnlyFans could have implemented something similar. PornHub went down that route when confronted with similar pressure - they got of rid of all video's that went compliant. But OnlyFans.com have chosen not to. I wonder why?
However those sites now all have strong 230 compliance regimes, and I gather OnlyFans doesn't. OnlyFans could have implemented something similar. PornHub went down that route when confronted with similar pressure - they got of rid of all video's that went compliant. But OnlyFans.com have chosen not to. I wonder why?
This seems almost like an automatism by now, that platforms pivot away from sexual content after a while. Remember, in the beginning Snapchat was considered a sexting app where you could safely send nudes, although it was not advertized as such. They moved to a more regular social app after some time.
Tinder was initially sometimes described as an app to find people nearby who want to hook up. Like a one-night-stand-radar. It quickly positioned itself as more traditional dating app (although very focused on visuals).
And although not sexual, I think what happend to YikYak is similar. They started as this anarchic platform where you anonymously could talk shit about local topics and people. And then they realized that is probably not what they want because it causes outrage, so they tried to nerf that aspect (which is the whole allure of the platform).
Sometimes the sanitizing works (Snapchat), sometimes it kills the app (Tumblr, YikYak). But in any case I'd wish there would still be a place for the anarchic, 'unmoral', wild ideas in our society.
Tinder was initially sometimes described as an app to find people nearby who want to hook up. Like a one-night-stand-radar. It quickly positioned itself as more traditional dating app (although very focused on visuals).
And although not sexual, I think what happend to YikYak is similar. They started as this anarchic platform where you anonymously could talk shit about local topics and people. And then they realized that is probably not what they want because it causes outrage, so they tried to nerf that aspect (which is the whole allure of the platform).
Sometimes the sanitizing works (Snapchat), sometimes it kills the app (Tumblr, YikYak). But in any case I'd wish there would still be a place for the anarchic, 'unmoral', wild ideas in our society.
TFA:
> OnlyFans is getting out of the pornography business.
HN:
> OnlyFans is getting out of the pornography business.
HN:
s/of the pornography //>TFA:
>> OnlyFans is getting out of the pornography business.
>HN:
> s/of the pornography //.
…is getting out business?
>> OnlyFans is getting out of the pornography business.
>HN:
> s/of the pornography //.
…is getting out business?
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions." Now they have two problems.
-- Jamie Zawinski
-- Jamie Zawinski
[deleted]
I didn't spot any regexes here.
Matching an exact string is also a valid regex, and I think the GP's simple attempt to use the substitution syntax illustrates JWZ's point even better than a more complex expression. There are so many ways of screwing it up that even a simple joke contained a bug.
The notation s/<regex1>/<regex2> is perl for "replace every instance matching regex1 by regex2. Literal strings are regexes that match only themselves.
Patreon’s 2020 annual net revenue is estimated at $80M. Last year onlyfans did $375M net revenue and 2021 is…was projected at $1.2B
Without porn, onlyfans will do maybe $100M in 2022. It’s the difference between a $1.5B valuation and a $20B valuation.
Without porn, onlyfans will do maybe $100M in 2022. It’s the difference between a $1.5B valuation and a $20B valuation.
[deleted]
Ay, yes, I was, you know, just making an off-hand comment.
It would have been better to get a code review or to test before checking-in that incorrect code.
Just because they think they need to always be growing, rather than just raking in the cash. Their value will go to 1/4 practically overnight is what I'm guessing.
This is a late reply but my interpretation of the events is that the payment processors drove this decision and I think that would be for one or two reasons.
1) There is a high chargeback and dispute rate on porn. I don't know why.
2) OnlyFans has underage performers who get on there using fake IDs and there is not a very good way to stop that.
1) There is a high chargeback and dispute rate on porn. I don't know why.
2) OnlyFans has underage performers who get on there using fake IDs and there is not a very good way to stop that.
It's not like they have a choice. Their business was only
ever viable at the behest of their payment provider. The reason no one has made an OnlyFans before, and the reason why people have tried and failed, entirely comes down to this.
Nothing particularly noble about porn, but it irks me that payment providers act as unofficial censors of business. Why should legal businesses be denied access to the de facto legal tender of 21st century? And on a whim of unelected CEOs...
I suspect it has less to do with their puritanical values and more to do with the enormous amount of fraud in the industry and the customer support load it places on them from the husbands, wives and children who swear up and down they aren't responsible for the charges found on the bill.
Affiliate products and rebilling scams solved this problem 15 years ago. You just need a high risk merchant account provider who will accept the extra risk of chargebacks, most likely in exchange for higher fees.
Surely if the risk of fraud is an issue, the processing companies could simply price it into their models and charge the vendor a premium for it.
Surely if the risk of fraud is an issue, the processing companies could simply price it into their models and charge the vendor a premium for it.
This is exactly it. Notably betting sites accept higher fees without issue. Obviously the margins take a hit but they're still profitable.
The main difference is that a gambler will keep throwing money (and encouraged to do so via dark patterns to keep the margins), whereas post-nut clarity is the main barrier to maintain the margins in porn.
The main difference is that a gambler will keep throwing money (and encouraged to do so via dark patterns to keep the margins), whereas post-nut clarity is the main barrier to maintain the margins in porn.
Makes me wonder how much the payment networks themselves can ultimately make the final call. Even if you find some high risk payment processor in Monaco, that won’t help much if the Amex/MasterCard/Visa cartel blacklists you.
What I don’t understand is the selective enforcement – why doesn’t this happen more often? Who is pressuring the payment networks?
What I don’t understand is the selective enforcement – why doesn’t this happen more often? Who is pressuring the payment networks?
The card cartel doesn't care as long as they don't lose money in the process.
In general merchants don't deal with client cards directly but through payment processors. The chargeback process is usually manual (meaning it requires non-negligible resources) plus it impacts the fees the card cartel collects (if the chargeback is accepted).
High risk payment processors generally agree to pay card cartels for the fee lost if chargebacks are accepted, and sometimes even perform refunds to stay within a threshold of chargebacks. This, plus extra fraud monitoring/protection makes their service more expensive.
You don't need a processor in Monaco, CCBill or PaymentCloud are US based and offer that. Now, they shave a significant chunk of the transaction in flat+percentage fees, it can be anywhere from 4 to 15% depending on your profile.
In general merchants don't deal with client cards directly but through payment processors. The chargeback process is usually manual (meaning it requires non-negligible resources) plus it impacts the fees the card cartel collects (if the chargeback is accepted).
High risk payment processors generally agree to pay card cartels for the fee lost if chargebacks are accepted, and sometimes even perform refunds to stay within a threshold of chargebacks. This, plus extra fraud monitoring/protection makes their service more expensive.
You don't need a processor in Monaco, CCBill or PaymentCloud are US based and offer that. Now, they shave a significant chunk of the transaction in flat+percentage fees, it can be anywhere from 4 to 15% depending on your profile.
Even if true, the enormous amount of fraud is in large part a result of their puritanical values. The fraud happens because it's an underground industry, it's an underground industry because of the puritanical values, etc.
This is like saying "drugs are bad because of all the violence" when the violence is mostly a symptom of how we treat drugs.
This is like saying "drugs are bad because of all the violence" when the violence is mostly a symptom of how we treat drugs.
Well, ok, disable credit cards. But debit cards don’t have these protections, transactions are essentially immutable.
I get they are less popular in the US but are probably, hmm, 70% of cards in Europe? So that’s a viable option.
I get they are less popular in the US but are probably, hmm, 70% of cards in Europe? So that’s a viable option.
My Visa debit card has all of these protections.
Yeah, Visa and Mastercard debit cards carry the same fraud/abuse protections as a credit card. They usually don't cover all the extra crap the credit cards do (car rentals, etc) but they will absolutely give you your money back and perform chargebacks in cases of fraud or denial of services tendered.
Debit cards have exactly the same fraud protections as credit cards as far as I know in Australia.
Interesting. In Europe, with a credit card, you can effectively just say to the bank “nah I didn’t pay this” and it’s on the bank to prove otherwise (it’s harder/impossible where pin was used but in the web it’s fair game). Debit cards have protection for outright fraud (and even then somewhat limited), certainly no “umm no” simplicity.
Somewhat. You can have a charge to your account reversed, but it's not a common thing and the process isn't trivialised.
Source: almost accidentally undid an in-shop payment because their processor was based in a different town where i had never been. Realised at the last moment where the charge came from; bank was willing to undo.
Source: almost accidentally undid an in-shop payment because their processor was based in a different town where i had never been. Realised at the last moment where the charge came from; bank was willing to undo.
Oh god I can’t believe I’m going to say this.
Crypto/Bitcoin, in keeping with the relationship the Internet and adult content have. Congrats Coinbase, Venmo, and others enabling censorship resistant crypto payments on your revenue bump.
Crypto/Bitcoin, in keeping with the relationship the Internet and adult content have. Congrats Coinbase, Venmo, and others enabling censorship resistant crypto payments on your revenue bump.
Coinbase, Venmo, and others are not enabling censorship resistant crypto payments. Coinbase does track who and where you send your crypto to, so in theory they can control what you do with it. The workaround would be to send your crypto to wallets not associated with them, even still.
Coinbase and Venmo's role is analogous to a bank that offers account holders debit cards that can access CC networks, not the organizations in control of the CC networks themselves.
> so in theory they can control what you do with it.
And yet, that isn't happening to the same degree as visa or mastercard.
So, for whatever reason, visa and mastercard are currently, successfully, forcing OnlyFans to do this kind of policy change, whereas coinbase is not.
When the actual rubber meets the road, crypto is defacto, not as censored as visa or mastercard.
And yet, that isn't happening to the same degree as visa or mastercard.
So, for whatever reason, visa and mastercard are currently, successfully, forcing OnlyFans to do this kind of policy change, whereas coinbase is not.
When the actual rubber meets the road, crypto is defacto, not as censored as visa or mastercard.
You could say the same about, say, Amex or Discover being de facto not as censored as Visa and Mastercard. The pressure is on Visa and Mastercard because they're where the vast majority of the money flow comes from.
Hate to break it to you, but all these processors that are facilitating crypto are actively policing what you do with it. They will restrict you or kick you off their platform for using crypto for things they don't want you to use it for.
Curious how much work they put into this. Do they follow coinbase->private wallet->multiple payees at different times for lower amounts?
Coinbase has an extremely advanced chain analysis system. Simple tricks like that are unlikely to defeat it.
https://www.coinbase.com/analytics
https://www.coinbase.com/analytics
Can you explain what the features on this page are being used for? Are you suggesting that if you buy coins from coinbase and they later detect that you are using them to pay for adult content that they will block your account?
Dark net people are pretty confident about tumbling. Or what about just converting coins.
Transferring your coins to a tumbler flags your wallet address in tools like Chainalysis. They can't see where you sent them post-tumble, but they can see that you sent them to a tumbler, and that alone will be flagged on your account.
They have very advanced risk compliance. They know about Every trick in the book.. all tracked. You would need to do way more than that.
Getting a payment provider an adult business using crypto is going to be even harder than getting a payment provider for just an adult business.
It took me minutes to setup a Coinbase account to send funds to SciHub. As long as OnlyFans isn’t hosting illegal content and they’re meeting financial regulations (no laundering, robust accounting), I don’t see a blocker. Yes, you’re going to have to meet up with fiat rails somewhere, which is where incumbent crypto exchanges operating legally come in (Coinbase, Gemini, Fidelity Digital Custodial).
It's easy enough for someone with basic tech skills to do this sure.
Onlyfans depends on joe average being able to do this (and not being scared off at the mention of the word "crypto")
I think crypto is about 5 - 10 years away from this point
Onlyfans depends on joe average being able to do this (and not being scared off at the mention of the word "crypto")
I think crypto is about 5 - 10 years away from this point
[deleted]
This would be the perfect spark for such a shift.
I agree it's a ways off from a user experience point of view, but people are willing to put up with a lot of "effort" if it's something they really want. This very well could be the impetus necessary to make crypto used more broadly for payments.
With current tech this would just be a mobile wallet that holds stablecoins with some sort of built in funding mechanism.
With current tech this would just be a mobile wallet that holds stablecoins with some sort of built in funding mechanism.
> As long as OnlyFans isn’t hosting illegal content
The service promises huge amounts of money to, lets be honest, young women, to post nude photos of themselves. How much are you willing to be that every single photo, every video, of what has to be in the terabytes, is of someone over the age of 18. That no one 17 or younger, lured in by promises of big money, lied about their age to get it? That the platform's age verification system is 100% bulletproof and can't be fooled by photoshop.
The service promises huge amounts of money to, lets be honest, young women, to post nude photos of themselves. How much are you willing to be that every single photo, every video, of what has to be in the terabytes, is of someone over the age of 18. That no one 17 or younger, lured in by promises of big money, lied about their age to get it? That the platform's age verification system is 100% bulletproof and can't be fooled by photoshop.
You're basically asking for perfection. If that's the standard you hold anything to, then you can burn down everything and roll in the ashes.
Rather, the obvious reading of that is that onlyfans isn't primarily or deliberately hosting illegal content.
Rather, the obvious reading of that is that onlyfans isn't primarily or deliberately hosting illegal content.
[deleted]
> It took me minutes to setup a Coinbase account to send funds to SciHub.
The issue is getting money from Coinbase into Wells Fargo or wherever, not getting it into Coinbase.
The issue is getting money from Coinbase into Wells Fargo or wherever, not getting it into Coinbase.
But the issue is with traditional payment providers: how do you transfer from crypto to your employees bank account, how do you tranfer to the IRS for tax purpose, etc. Now you have two problems: you look shady as fuck transfer large crypto amounts and you're already flagged for profiteering off underage porn...
As usual crypto is a solution that didnt solve the problem: how do you detect underage porn so that you can mark your profits in general.
As usual crypto is a solution that didnt solve the problem: how do you detect underage porn so that you can mark your profits in general.
But that’s not the problem. The problem is payments for services that aren’t illegal (legal age adult content), merely taboo and unwanted by a payments oligopoly (Visa and MasterCard).
Yes, crypto incurs drag from fees and inconvenience for a platform to transact in it, but it can’t turn your payments off overnight.
(and I make these comments as a crypto skeptic)
Yes, crypto incurs drag from fees and inconvenience for a platform to transact in it, but it can’t turn your payments off overnight.
(and I make these comments as a crypto skeptic)
So, is there a market for a credit card that caters to these things?
Such a product could not be a credit card, as it would run on rails of your traditional providers (Visa, MasterCard, etc). If you want to avoid traditional payment rails who can financially deplatform you, it has to be crypto (much to my dismay). Could you use ACH or Instant Payments from the Fed? For as long as the banks that support those payment rails don’t give you the boot.
Think Privacy.com/Lithic.com but using crypto and instant fiat->crypto conversions when the payments are made. No chargebacks, no refunds. The crypto or stablecoin are decentralized rails.
Think Privacy.com/Lithic.com but using crypto and instant fiat->crypto conversions when the payments are made. No chargebacks, no refunds. The crypto or stablecoin are decentralized rails.
> Such a product could not be a credit card, as it would run on rails of your traditional providers (Visa, MasterCard, etc).
You'd have to build your own infrastructure, but you could make an actual credit card. It would have to be super jank at first (you might even have to cut actual physical checks at first). Fundamentally, a credit card is just you paying for somebody's transactions, and billing them at the end of the month (and suing them if they don't pay up).
It would be slow, and the service would be horrible, but the people accepting your money don't have a ton of other options.
You'd have to build your own infrastructure, but you could make an actual credit card. It would have to be super jank at first (you might even have to cut actual physical checks at first). Fundamentally, a credit card is just you paying for somebody's transactions, and billing them at the end of the month (and suing them if they don't pay up).
It would be slow, and the service would be horrible, but the people accepting your money don't have a ton of other options.
I think the market for that is growing, but they'd have to thread a very tight needle reputation wise. The credit card business relies heavily on trust, and the major networks like Visa have literally decades of reputation behind them.
And fundamentally the reason that credit cards have that customer trust is that they make it easy for customers to get refunds when the product isn't delivered, which is very hard to do for an Onlyfans-like business where there's no way to "return faulty goods" - standing in the middle between clients who think they didn't get what they paid for and sellers who think someone just wants to copy their pics without paying is not going to be a fun place to be.
And fundamentally the reason that credit cards have that customer trust is that they make it easy for customers to get refunds when the product isn't delivered, which is very hard to do for an Onlyfans-like business where there's no way to "return faulty goods" - standing in the middle between clients who think they didn't get what they paid for and sellers who think someone just wants to copy their pics without paying is not going to be a fun place to be.
[deleted]
But most coins are public ledger. And the "know your customer" exchanges are not allowing privacy protecting coins.
Zcash is on Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken, ...
And Zcash is not private by default (though can be shielded). Monero is private by default and is also available on Kraken and others.
Good point about exchanges with Monero. (It's also on Coinbase, of the others I listed.)
The "private by default" criticism is misleading:
- While this is important in a design which mixes your transaction with a limited set of other recent transactions, in Zcash the privacy set is all of the shielded transactions ever.
- It's not a "default" technically, it's a choice of transparent and shielded, both of which are useful. "Default" is a wallet UX question. I think the latest reference wallet auto-shields things so you don't have to remember to shield what comes in from a transparent transaction.
The "private by default" criticism is misleading:
- While this is important in a design which mixes your transaction with a limited set of other recent transactions, in Zcash the privacy set is all of the shielded transactions ever.
- It's not a "default" technically, it's a choice of transparent and shielded, both of which are useful. "Default" is a wallet UX question. I think the latest reference wallet auto-shields things so you don't have to remember to shield what comes in from a transparent transaction.
[deleted]
Maybe OnlyFans talk to these guys and see if they can worm something out
https://spankchain.com/
https://spankchain.com/
This is the first time I've seen x-rated Corporate Memphis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Memphis
Heh, there are already multiple streaming payments platforms built on the Bitcoin Lightning Network, and they're not oblivious to this market: https://twitter.com/get_zion/status/1428417401297723397
And as always, porn leads the way
Having worked as an adult programmer, they are really far behind technology trends. You're lucky if they use version control and staging servers.
Somehow there is this meme that porn sites are technically impressive due to their scale/small video playback enhancements, neglecting that they have a slightly more captive audience that will forgive small hitches than most streaming video providers.
The meme is dumb and should die imho.
The meme is dumb and should die imho.
Having worked at a porn site and a FAANG, I’d say my porn work was more impressive — because payment processors / ad providers / hosting companies / etc are so anti-adult-content, getting anything done is a lot harder.
It's not about quality of product. It's about motivation to deploy new technologies for the experience it enables.
[deleted]
Censorship resistant currencies are more like Monero…
LOL This is would actually work! Holy crap if OnlyFans actually started accepting bitcoin that would be incredible
transaction fees would be too high, transactions would take too long, and the transactions would be public.
OnlyFans could be the exchange. You send their public wallet the crypto buying a “OF coin” stable coin or similar (gift card funds essentially), they handle the distribution internally.
Best practice would be for patrons and content producers to have dedicated wallets for OnlyFans transactions, to prevent data leakage from ledger analysis.
Best practice would be for patrons and content producers to have dedicated wallets for OnlyFans transactions, to prevent data leakage from ledger analysis.
You still have to go through an on-ramp provider or OF does the on-ramp but then probably lots of reg headache. Plus I bet impulse buying is the way to activate OF users. One way to solve this can be to find an on-ramp solution w/ UX on par with card payments and then handle pay-in and pay-outs via Zcash or Monero or using Aztec protocol.
Or just use a private crypto like Monero
If the problem is scrutiny from investors, I don't think it's a viable solution to become a payment processor and therefore attract additional scrutiny from banking regulators.
OnlyFanBucks heh. Don't actually need crypto for that, but if it's better, then whatever.
Lightning fixes all that.
It’s not that special. Other adult sites and shadier stuff push crypto or only do crypto
How do sites like Pornhub get paid then? Why can't OnlyFans switch to whatever provider they use?
pornhub is having exactly this issue.
https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/pornhub-crypto-news
from february
https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/pornhub-crypto-news
from february
> "This is good for adoption! Next up, Onlyfans."
Sadly it doesn't seem to be working out as the crypto-enthusiast author might have wanted.
Sadly it doesn't seem to be working out as the crypto-enthusiast author might have wanted.
Source?
literally the link in the post above what you replied to.
ahhhh, I had misunderstood what they were referencing. I had assumed it meant things weren't working out for PH. When the quote meant to refer to how things weren't working out for OF.
Didn't they had the same problem a few months ago or so?
> How do sites like Pornhub get paid then?
At the moment I'm pretty sure they don't. At least, not via card-based payment systems.
At the moment I'm pretty sure they don't. At least, not via card-based payment systems.
Don't pornography companies typically use payment processors that are considered pretty shady? Or, these days I'd imagine most of them accept cryptocurrency.
They are "shady" only by circular reasoning, because they handle porn.
Objectively, they also charge much higher fees because of the high chargeback rates associated with porn. They also tend to process other unsavory transactions, which also have higher chargeback rates; hence they are "shady."
Right, but... is that 99% of their content, 99.9%, or 99.99%? Cause I bet it's at least 99%.
> The reason no one has made an OnlyFans before
Patreon?
Patreon?
I feel like Tumblr was actually growing when they made they change (which promptly killed their growth). I don't see how Only Fans is going to remain solvent without their core creators.
Possibly, but they will raise funds or do an IPO with the inertia and numbers from their porn days. One of the founders would be bought out in the next investment round.
[deleted]
Why isn't it their choice given the huge profit numbers presented in the leaked pitch deck? Are their server costs really more than hundreds of millions?
[deleted]
That was one first thought too
I think a lot of governments are starting to decide that social media and porn are a terrible waste of resources. If so, they're not wrong.
OF is a creator platform at heart and not necessarily tied to sexually explicit content except by reputation. There is a likely a huge non-porn market for helping creators of all types monetize their content. The question will be if they can actually get people to completely change their mind about what the platform is for.
For this use case, Patreon & OpenCollective (yes, OpenCollective) is far more established and offers many more features than OF. What's the point in using OF then?
Network effects. Start with taboo yet high demand market then pivot.
I'm not a market strategist, but I think you don't start to capitalize on the network effect by cutting away 95% of your network.
How and where and what USP (Unique Selling Point) is there to OF that Patreon/OpenCollective are missing?
"Network effects" doesn't mean jack, this isn't surfacing a plumber to a user on facebook because friends of friends have reviewed them in their local area..
"Network effects" doesn't mean jack, this isn't surfacing a plumber to a user on facebook because friends of friends have reviewed them in their local area..
I agree that there's a huge non-porn market that's likely largely preferable, but said market is already on Patreon which, I think most people would agree, is overall a better platform to begin with.
Honestly OnlyFans has a more reliable website with better UX. Patreon was there first and isn't bad enough to give creators an reason to move, but I don't think it's "better".
Yes there is a huge market for non-porn and it's all on Patreon.
And there's Ko-fi for people who do the things that go on Patreon and find Patreon lacking, but want a platform with name recognition. They even added memberships and Discord integration recently.
Perhaps, but OnlyFans will always be a porn site in consumer imaginations moving forward. Nobody’s going to put their wholesome knitting content on there moving forward
this seems fixable by rebranding
Can they possibly have such great IP that has any value over any 'I could clone that in a weekend' (i.e. longer than that, but still not long) jobs? Or other incumbents like Patreon?
They have a solid brand, it isn't what they want, but change that and what else is there?
I laughed reading the title, because it sounds just like 'TikTok bans dances', 'Instagram bans food and candid shots that aren't' to me. I don't use any of these sites, but that's the reputation they have/association I have for them; rebranding away from it when the core is so simple just seems nuts.
They have a solid brand, it isn't what they want, but change that and what else is there?
I laughed reading the title, because it sounds just like 'TikTok bans dances', 'Instagram bans food and candid shots that aren't' to me. I don't use any of these sites, but that's the reputation they have/association I have for them; rebranding away from it when the core is so simple just seems nuts.
> Can they possibly have such great IP
I really have no idea. I also don't know whether rebranding is the right choice.
But they have the code, the infrastructure, the marketing department, and all the revenue from their adult services days. So that seems like a pretty big head start over just a clone of their web UI.
I really have no idea. I also don't know whether rebranding is the right choice.
But they have the code, the infrastructure, the marketing department, and all the revenue from their adult services days. So that seems like a pretty big head start over just a clone of their web UI.
It's a bit of a headstart sure, but it's also a great way to ensure they hæmorrhage cash right along with all the users...
(Also, we're talking like it has a massive employee count, is that the case? Could be just a handful for all I know.)
(Also, we're talking like it has a massive employee count, is that the case? Could be just a handful for all I know.)
[deleted]
[deleted]
OF is thot central.
I'm thinking of the wider insanity to create a economy so large as to almost acquire Web Scale, but only for a financial customer base of individuals who are lacking in the necessary skills and knowledge and motivation and experience to organise themselves into the pressure groups you absolutely have to have prepared to defend your business in the morality courts of post WWII America. Larry Flynt had his work cut out for him with much more modest content.
EDIT to add :
If you argue ad absurdam that everyone is going to be exposed to everyone for moral judgement of their rights to online existence, then maybe we need a more sophisticated and practically judicious and efficient system of adjudication of the legal entitlements and freedoms endowed to everyone, than "I know it when I see it ".
This needs a logical codex. Literally a logical reduction of the comprehensive semantics used to describe unacceptable content. From which we can apply triage to emergency cases of accused indecency. Too many cases are heard so immediately in the courts of public opprobrium exclusively in hostile environments where the most sympathetic media is bound and restricted from venturing any actual support virtually ensuring that the rights of the publisher are lost. This is ignoring the issues of commercial withdrawal of essential services.
EDIT to add :
If you argue ad absurdam that everyone is going to be exposed to everyone for moral judgement of their rights to online existence, then maybe we need a more sophisticated and practically judicious and efficient system of adjudication of the legal entitlements and freedoms endowed to everyone, than "I know it when I see it ".
This needs a logical codex. Literally a logical reduction of the comprehensive semantics used to describe unacceptable content. From which we can apply triage to emergency cases of accused indecency. Too many cases are heard so immediately in the courts of public opprobrium exclusively in hostile environments where the most sympathetic media is bound and restricted from venturing any actual support virtually ensuring that the rights of the publisher are lost. This is ignoring the issues of commercial withdrawal of essential services.
Is this a Markov chain or something?
I thought the same, but it makes sense, if you go past the strange grammar structure and pompous words.
My liberal translation:
It's crazy that companies try to scale workforce like you scale compute units in the cloud. This wouldn't be the same if the workforce organized itself in unions, both against the platform and the moral police.
If arguing that everyone on these platforms would be judged in front of everyone else, maybe a legal framework dictating what people can and cannot do is the way to go (I think it sarcastically implies that the "everything which is not forbidden is allowed" principle would be violated).
Edit: it's very complex to describe what unacceptable content is. This will cause many cases of indecency accusations, which will turn the public against them, leaving no freedom of media per se.
My liberal translation:
It's crazy that companies try to scale workforce like you scale compute units in the cloud. This wouldn't be the same if the workforce organized itself in unions, both against the platform and the moral police.
If arguing that everyone on these platforms would be judged in front of everyone else, maybe a legal framework dictating what people can and cannot do is the way to go (I think it sarcastically implies that the "everything which is not forbidden is allowed" principle would be violated).
Edit: it's very complex to describe what unacceptable content is. This will cause many cases of indecency accusations, which will turn the public against them, leaving no freedom of media per se.
Wow thanks, I see what you mean. I think “public opprobrium” threw me off as a really unnatural thing to write, run on sentences aside
You used many words and said nothing.
Its the inverse of the "Kevin from the office" meme
Why pursue brevity in speech when a veritable volley of verbiage will provide the necessary and sufficient verisimilitude?
Verbosity and grandiloquence is no replacement for clarity of thought
Extra points for all V words hahaha
> This is going to be corporate suicide on a greater scale than Tumblr's policy.
Strong disagree. They lined their coffers and now it's time to pivot. In fact, it's probably the perfect time to pivot. They are still relatively unknown, and their reputation hasn't been tarnished. Patreon is ripe for disruption.
Pornography is not how you become a billion-dollar unicorn, which is I'm sure what they're eyeing (especially after their most recent raise).
Strong disagree. They lined their coffers and now it's time to pivot. In fact, it's probably the perfect time to pivot. They are still relatively unknown, and their reputation hasn't been tarnished. Patreon is ripe for disruption.
Pornography is not how you become a billion-dollar unicorn, which is I'm sure what they're eyeing (especially after their most recent raise).
> They are still relatively unknown, and their reputation hasn't been tarnished.
Are you sure about that? This company seems pretty well known in the creator space, but not for hosting anything other than porn. At least in all communities I follow, having an OnlyFans account is synonymous with selling porn.
> Pornography is not how you become a billion-dollar unicorn
Pornhub would like to have a word with you. I'd say that, in fact, porn is one of the easiest ways to get there (as shown, for example, by OFs enormous growth).
Are you sure about that? This company seems pretty well known in the creator space, but not for hosting anything other than porn. At least in all communities I follow, having an OnlyFans account is synonymous with selling porn.
> Pornography is not how you become a billion-dollar unicorn
Pornhub would like to have a word with you. I'd say that, in fact, porn is one of the easiest ways to get there (as shown, for example, by OFs enormous growth).
I don't know - OF has one type of users, Patreon has another type of users. OF would need to completely re-brand themselves, name change and all - because seriously, what non-adult (or those very close to adult content) content-creators would use OF as a platform for their work?
Onlyfans is synonymous with camgirls and porn
Onlyfans is synonymous with camgirls and porn
If a top-notch sushi chef puts OnlyFans on their business card, I'm not going to expect them to be preparing fish on their page. They would be doing it on tiktok though.
OnlyFans is instagram but for porn. If they want to escape that, they're gonna have to rebrand.
OnlyFans is instagram but for porn. If they want to escape that, they're gonna have to rebrand.
You absolutely must be living in an alternate reality than I am.
1. Onlyfans is extremely well know to the point of being a meme, you couldn't be more wrong. Like what rock would you have to be hiding under to not have heard of OF?
2. Exactly what about Patreon seems ripe for disruption? Looking for something specific here, hopefully something that wouldn't apply to most every other company.
3. ??? But only-fans literally became a billion-dollar unicorn on the back of porn. Like, I'm speechless, really, I am.
1. Onlyfans is extremely well know to the point of being a meme, you couldn't be more wrong. Like what rock would you have to be hiding under to not have heard of OF?
2. Exactly what about Patreon seems ripe for disruption? Looking for something specific here, hopefully something that wouldn't apply to most every other company.
3. ??? But only-fans literally became a billion-dollar unicorn on the back of porn. Like, I'm speechless, really, I am.
Right, when his stream viewers ask Grand Pooh Bear (well known Mario player) "Do you have an OnlyFans?" they are probably joking and the reference is obviously about pornography. GPB laughs it off, after all he's in the Men Of Mario charity calendar and he's referred to himself as something like "Basically a CamGirl", but the implication is clearly not "Do you also post videos of playing video games on OnlyFans?".
Whereas for example GPB and other Mario players have TikTok, Instagram, Twitter and so on, full of Mario, because duh, that's what they do. Why would you expect say, Pangea Panga's Twitter to be about dinosaur fossils, Defender to do TikTok dances or CarlSagan42 to... OK, Carl is different.
I've not seen anybody ask Geek (another popular Mario player) whether she's on OnlyFans but I would expect that if they did ask that they'd get banned from her chat, because again, nobody thinks "Oh yeah, I bet she'd charge money for Mario videos" the implication would be that it's porn.
Whereas for example GPB and other Mario players have TikTok, Instagram, Twitter and so on, full of Mario, because duh, that's what they do. Why would you expect say, Pangea Panga's Twitter to be about dinosaur fossils, Defender to do TikTok dances or CarlSagan42 to... OK, Carl is different.
I've not seen anybody ask Geek (another popular Mario player) whether she's on OnlyFans but I would expect that if they did ask that they'd get banned from her chat, because again, nobody thinks "Oh yeah, I bet she'd charge money for Mario videos" the implication would be that it's porn.
> Onlyfans is extremely well know to the point of being a meme, you couldn't be more wrong. Like what rock would you have to be hiding under to not have heard of OF?
I disagree. OnlyFans is well-known in streamer/gamer/internet/Tumblr/Twitter culture. Ask anyone on the street and most people won't know about the porn connection. They probably won't even know what OF is.
> 3. ??? But only-fans literally became a billion-dollar unicorn on the back of porn. Like, I'm speechless, really, I am.
They haven't, though. They "only" made ~400 million last year and can't find investors (did you even read through the Axios report?). Porn is bad for business. I'm surprised people are surprised. Patreon literally did this exact same thing[1] (ditched explicit content after initially allowing it).
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbqwwj/patreon-suspension-of...
I disagree. OnlyFans is well-known in streamer/gamer/internet/Tumblr/Twitter culture. Ask anyone on the street and most people won't know about the porn connection. They probably won't even know what OF is.
> 3. ??? But only-fans literally became a billion-dollar unicorn on the back of porn. Like, I'm speechless, really, I am.
They haven't, though. They "only" made ~400 million last year and can't find investors (did you even read through the Axios report?). Porn is bad for business. I'm surprised people are surprised. Patreon literally did this exact same thing[1] (ditched explicit content after initially allowing it).
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbqwwj/patreon-suspension-of...
Hard disagree.
It's been mentioned in jokes, multiple times, in prime time current affairs shows in my country.
I expect almost everyone I know under the age of 60 knows what it is. From my under 18 relatives, through the accountants and builders and electricians, to the coffee shop owners, bar staff... and of course all the systems & software people I work with.
It's been mentioned in jokes, multiple times, in prime time current affairs shows in my country.
I expect almost everyone I know under the age of 60 knows what it is. From my under 18 relatives, through the accountants and builders and electricians, to the coffee shop owners, bar staff... and of course all the systems & software people I work with.
> They haven't, though. They "only" made ~400 million last year and can't find investors (did you even read through the Axios report?). Porn is bad for business. I'm surprised people are surprised. Patreon literally did this exact same thing[1] (ditched explicit content after initially allowing it).
Yeah I'm not sure how to respond, since you don't seem to understand anything the same way I do. Like zero points agreement here, which is why I opened with we must be living in a different reality.
When you somebody says a "billion dollar unicorn" they are talking about valuation not revenue. Also the vast majority, effectively all of OF's revenue is related to the adult content they are going to be removing.
Yeah I'm not sure how to respond, since you don't seem to understand anything the same way I do. Like zero points agreement here, which is why I opened with we must be living in a different reality.
When you somebody says a "billion dollar unicorn" they are talking about valuation not revenue. Also the vast majority, effectively all of OF's revenue is related to the adult content they are going to be removing.
I can understand the business reasons for cleaning up the OnlyFans brand. But I can't, for the life of me, understand why they are killing a cash cow instead of spining it off into a side business.
Clone the full experience on a dedicated site, OnlyFantasy.com, duplicate the whole userbase, and give a simple warning that I can find my favorite stars on another site. In time, the user bases will diverge naturally depending on interests.
Yes, the payment processors will bark at the porn site. Move to a more expensive processor for that site only, pay 5%, 10% fee, it doesn't really matter, it's free money.
Clone the full experience on a dedicated site, OnlyFantasy.com, duplicate the whole userbase, and give a simple warning that I can find my favorite stars on another site. In time, the user bases will diverge naturally depending on interests.
Yes, the payment processors will bark at the porn site. Move to a more expensive processor for that site only, pay 5%, 10% fee, it doesn't really matter, it's free money.
> Yes, the payment processors will bark at the porn site. Move to a more expensive processor for that site only, pay 5%, 10% fee, it doesn't really matter, it's free money.
If PH is having trouble processing any form of credit card, a smaller company will have no chance at all. We're seeing a sterilization of legitimate porn on the internet, done by legitimate tax paying western companies. It'll be left to whoever can operate beyond those constraints, which is kind of a sad state of affairs for free speech, separation of church and state, and policing in general.
If PH is having trouble processing any form of credit card, a smaller company will have no chance at all. We're seeing a sterilization of legitimate porn on the internet, done by legitimate tax paying western companies. It'll be left to whoever can operate beyond those constraints, which is kind of a sad state of affairs for free speech, separation of church and state, and policing in general.
> If PH is having trouble processing any form of credit card, a smaller company will have no chance at all. We're seeing a sterilization of legitimate porn on the internet, done by legitimate tax paying western companies. It'll be left to whoever can operate beyond those constraints, which is kind of a sad state of affairs for free speech, separation of church and state, and policing in general.
Welcome to the "free(ish) market." As I've said before, people love to say they're in favor of the "free market," until they get one. There is no law preventing any payment processor from accepting clients in the adult content space. They do it simply because of risk and to protect their corporate image.
Welcome to the "free(ish) market." As I've said before, people love to say they're in favor of the "free market," until they get one. There is no law preventing any payment processor from accepting clients in the adult content space. They do it simply because of risk and to protect their corporate image.
This pedantic argument is so tired. This is not about arguing over the details of some economic model. The problem is culturally pushing some neopuritan nonsense, always in a highly selective way as you can always find a ton of contradictions. Not to mention when you consider the practicality of outright banning entire market categories in order to combat tiny edge cases.
These conversations should be about the end results and not just blindly accepting a culture of overreacting to every sort of risk.
Forcing companies to middleman sales at gun point isn't any better of a solution either, nor is it even probable, which is really the only other economic model (besides some true-scotsman bitcoin solution).
Trying to work with the system is better than abandoning it for some pipedream or throwing up our hands like there's no solution.
These conversations should be about the end results and not just blindly accepting a culture of overreacting to every sort of risk.
Forcing companies to middleman sales at gun point isn't any better of a solution either, nor is it even probable, which is really the only other economic model (besides some true-scotsman bitcoin solution).
Trying to work with the system is better than abandoning it for some pipedream or throwing up our hands like there's no solution.
"This is not about arguing over the details of some economic model. The problem is culturally pushing some neopuritan nonsense"
The problem is these companies have accumulated so much power, they can push anything they want on you. They can reach into your device, scan you files, canxell your transaction, etc. and there is fuck all you cam do about it.
The problem is these companies have accumulated so much power, they can push anything they want on you. They can reach into your device, scan you files, canxell your transaction, etc. and there is fuck all you cam do about it.
sounds like a free market model to me.
Anyhow free-market is a meaningless label akin to socialism.
People misuse it so much that it lost any meaning.
Free-market means legislative anarchy of anything to do with markets. The moment the is a mandate ie corn subsidies, banned substances its no longer free by the definition.
Anyhow free-market is a meaningless label akin to socialism.
People misuse it so much that it lost any meaning.
Free-market means legislative anarchy of anything to do with markets. The moment the is a mandate ie corn subsidies, banned substances its no longer free by the definition.
> The problem is culturally pushing some neopuritan nonsense, always in a highly selective way as you can always find a ton of contradiction
But are you willing to argue the same for every minor group of content/business that gets selected out but the same economic model ?
We'll be pushing en masse against banning porn. Will we also be doing the same for every single category of legit business that credit card companies won't touch for any reason they feel like ?
That seems highly unrealistic to me, and we're basically saying to minority groups that the day Mastercard doesn't want them as customers they're done and done.
But are you willing to argue the same for every minor group of content/business that gets selected out but the same economic model ?
We'll be pushing en masse against banning porn. Will we also be doing the same for every single category of legit business that credit card companies won't touch for any reason they feel like ?
That seems highly unrealistic to me, and we're basically saying to minority groups that the day Mastercard doesn't want them as customers they're done and done.
I think there's an expectation from people who casually support economic libertarianism, that the social compact will not come to bear on commercial enterprise when governance is removed. Anyone who thinks a little deeper about it knows it won't play out this way, and that reputation is part and parcel of the product, and public opinion will always need to reckoned with by any enterprise that wants to scale.
Well, there may not be laws against it, but the government doesn't always play by the rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
The chokepoint isn't the government in this case, but rather the major card brands (Visa, MasterCard, American Express). In the US, these brands have embedded morality clauses that prohibit these payments from riding their rails[1].
That being said, most US debit networks (Star, Pulse, Coop, etc) don't have these restrictions. It does damage the user experience to limit your card acceptance to most debit cards.
1 - https://thehill.com/policy/technology/548279-mastercard-upda...
That being said, most US debit networks (Star, Pulse, Coop, etc) don't have these restrictions. It does damage the user experience to limit your card acceptance to most debit cards.
1 - https://thehill.com/policy/technology/548279-mastercard-upda...
It's that weird American kind of funny that you can't pay for porn with an American Express credit card, but you can buy guns and a few crates of ammo.
I know, why can't we have both?
You're slicing the baloney pretty thin if you agree that the government has taken action against these same financial institutions, with respect to their processing similar payments, but it's completely unrelated to the current situation, and that the financial institutions should act as if nothing's ever happened before.
Or non-action. Europe and Australia have regulated/reduced credit card interchange fees, but USA has not.
This whole “pay with card to get a lot of points!” thing while also allowing processors to have anti-competitive terms forbidding surcharges for credit card payments is a huuuuuuuge boon for their industry.
This whole “pay with card to get a lot of points!” thing while also allowing processors to have anti-competitive terms forbidding surcharges for credit card payments is a huuuuuuuge boon for their industry.
It's really pretty crazy when you think about it. My card is 2% cash back everywhere. Discover is basically letting me steal 2% of the revenue of every shop I visit and the shops can't do anything about it.
This is where you build a UX around buying some crypto-token in the check-out flow via a simple redirect to a partner, fix your credit card issue, and the partner immediately gets you a USDC transfer after charging the credit card.
Yes, there are companies out there that will do this.
Yes, there are companies out there that will do this.
This is a perfect opportunity for 1 credit card company to step in / step up and differentiate themselves from the rest.
I’m surprised that I hadn’t heard of Star, Pulse, and Coop before. Probably has something to do with the Durbin Amendment.
I’m surprised that I hadn’t heard of Star, Pulse, and Coop before. Probably has something to do with the Durbin Amendment.
I wonder which morality clause they used for blocking payments to Wikileaks?
Wow, this is sooo disingenuous I can not believe it is even being said
Aside from the fact that where a metric ton of regulations targeting processing adult content payments under the guide of "protecting the children"
There is another metric ton of regulations around creating and operating a payment processing system. There is a reason no competitors to paypal have really emerged. That reason is GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS..
Please stop saying people do not like a free market when they get one as there is NOTHING FREE MARKET about the banking industry in either the world or the US
Aside from the fact that where a metric ton of regulations targeting processing adult content payments under the guide of "protecting the children"
There is another metric ton of regulations around creating and operating a payment processing system. There is a reason no competitors to paypal have really emerged. That reason is GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS..
Please stop saying people do not like a free market when they get one as there is NOTHING FREE MARKET about the banking industry in either the world or the US
How many of those government regulations were written by private companies who lobbied (read bribed) politicians to pass them specifically to keep out competitors? Government regulation is a very important tool, but like any tool it can be abused and used in harmful ways, especially if you don't do anything meaningful to prevent it.
Government Regulation is not an important tool, and it will ALWAYS be abused in harmful ways. This has always been true, and will always be true
The Stronger and more centralized the government, the more abuse and harm will come
Weak, distributed government power is the only resolution to corruption, people never want to admit that however.
Government should be limited to the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense of Individual rights, and nothing more
The Stronger and more centralized the government, the more abuse and harm will come
Weak, distributed government power is the only resolution to corruption, people never want to admit that however.
Government should be limited to the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense of Individual rights, and nothing more
> it will ALWAYS be abused in harmful ways. This has always been true, and will always be true
This is demonstrably false. There are countless regulations that are vital to your every day life which serve absolutely no nefarious purpose.
Your flaw is assuming that corruption can only come from government. You risk allowing yourself to be ruled and abused by corrupt corporations (many of which are larger and have more money than some governments).
Make no mistake, there will always be people who will try to take advantage of you. They will flock to places where they have power over others. Some of them will end up in government and some of them will end up in corporations. As a citizen, you may have the power to vote out the ones that exist in governments. You have zero power over who is employed at a corporation.
You want to weaken the thing you have at least some measure of control over to allow yourself to be ruled over by something you have no ability to control or influence.
I don't understand the willingness to subjugate yourself before powerful corporations while also tying your own hands behind your back as you bend over for them. Is it because you believe that they will be benevolent rulers? History shows us they will not. Does it make it easier to pretend that you aren't being ruled? History shows us you most assuredly will be.
Maybe it's because we don't talk much about the long history of abuses people suffer when they allow themselves to be ruled by corporations. Maybe you think that those horrific abuses which happen even today overseas could never happen to you even if you weaken the government which currently protects you from those very same conditions. It's a bit like watching someone beg to be enslaved while insisting they'll somehow have freed themselves once they are...
This is demonstrably false. There are countless regulations that are vital to your every day life which serve absolutely no nefarious purpose.
Your flaw is assuming that corruption can only come from government. You risk allowing yourself to be ruled and abused by corrupt corporations (many of which are larger and have more money than some governments).
Make no mistake, there will always be people who will try to take advantage of you. They will flock to places where they have power over others. Some of them will end up in government and some of them will end up in corporations. As a citizen, you may have the power to vote out the ones that exist in governments. You have zero power over who is employed at a corporation.
You want to weaken the thing you have at least some measure of control over to allow yourself to be ruled over by something you have no ability to control or influence.
I don't understand the willingness to subjugate yourself before powerful corporations while also tying your own hands behind your back as you bend over for them. Is it because you believe that they will be benevolent rulers? History shows us they will not. Does it make it easier to pretend that you aren't being ruled? History shows us you most assuredly will be.
Maybe it's because we don't talk much about the long history of abuses people suffer when they allow themselves to be ruled by corporations. Maybe you think that those horrific abuses which happen even today overseas could never happen to you even if you weaken the government which currently protects you from those very same conditions. It's a bit like watching someone beg to be enslaved while insisting they'll somehow have freed themselves once they are...
>>>You risk allowing yourself to be ruled and abused by corrupt corporations
Absent Government there can be no corporations, Business sure, but business absent government looks very different
Corporations are fictional entities created by government regulations namely liability shields, to facilitate investment.
>As a citizen, you may have the power to vote out the ones that exist in governments
Reality says other wise, as a citizen my vote only carries the measure if there is a tie, there as never been a tie...
This mystical rose colored view of democracy does not match reality.
>You have zero power over who is employed at a corporation.
I would say my power to say who is employed at a corporation is about the same as my power to say who is in power in government, that is not even talking about who I have the option to vote for.
In my entire life I do not believe a Single person I have ever voted for as ever won the election... I do not vote for either Republicans or Democrats
>>I don't understand the willingness to subjugate yourself before powerful corporations
that is because you have confused my position. Allow me to restate it. I am not opposed to Government.. I am opposed to the type of government we have, I believe the constitution did not do enough to limit government.
Government should only be empowered to protect the individual rights. Specifically negative individual rights. Not "Human rights" which are often defined to include positive rights, things like Housing, Health Care, and all manner of other things the government must provide..
Government should not be the parent, the nanny, or the sovereign over the people. The type of government found in most of the "First World" is a complete inversion of what government should be, subservient to the people, not sovereign over them
Read The Law by Frederic Bastiat to glean an understanding of where I believe government regulations, and law should be at and how it should be limited
Absent Government there can be no corporations, Business sure, but business absent government looks very different
Corporations are fictional entities created by government regulations namely liability shields, to facilitate investment.
>As a citizen, you may have the power to vote out the ones that exist in governments
Reality says other wise, as a citizen my vote only carries the measure if there is a tie, there as never been a tie...
This mystical rose colored view of democracy does not match reality.
>You have zero power over who is employed at a corporation.
I would say my power to say who is employed at a corporation is about the same as my power to say who is in power in government, that is not even talking about who I have the option to vote for.
In my entire life I do not believe a Single person I have ever voted for as ever won the election... I do not vote for either Republicans or Democrats
>>I don't understand the willingness to subjugate yourself before powerful corporations
that is because you have confused my position. Allow me to restate it. I am not opposed to Government.. I am opposed to the type of government we have, I believe the constitution did not do enough to limit government.
Government should only be empowered to protect the individual rights. Specifically negative individual rights. Not "Human rights" which are often defined to include positive rights, things like Housing, Health Care, and all manner of other things the government must provide..
Government should not be the parent, the nanny, or the sovereign over the people. The type of government found in most of the "First World" is a complete inversion of what government should be, subservient to the people, not sovereign over them
Read The Law by Frederic Bastiat to glean an understanding of where I believe government regulations, and law should be at and how it should be limited
The libertarian free market folks are 100% in agreement with the "those rules were written by the businesses that are supposed to follow them" point. Businesses love the regulations that protect their market share. They may be pro-free-market when times are good, but when times are bad they cry foul about speculators and lobby for bailouts. I'm sure if I was a business I'd do the same :)
The problem exists because payment processing is a duopoly, not a free market (something that, in the case of a natural monopoly, can only be maintained through vigorous regulation).
Payment processing is not a natural monopoly. The fact that it is a duopoly demonstrates that there could be competition in the space, so you can't use that as an excuse.
They remain a duopoly rather than a monopoly only because they're already the subject of massive (though still inadequate) antitrust action. An economic modelling result I saw once suggested that a competitive market requires that the top four competitors own no more than a combined 60% of the market.
Yeah. But, supposedly, in a free market, if there's demand for it (a payment processor that accepts porn), there would be supply. Someone would come up with a company devoted to just that.
The problem isn't that you need an alternative to PayPal, you need an alternative to Visa and MasterCard.
That's a lot harder because they have more of a network effect. People have a Visa or MasterCard because it's widely accepted and it's widely accepted because a lot of people have one.
The solution to this is to make it easier for people to get or accept the alternative payment network. Only now you're into regulatory barriers.
The critical feature of PornCard is that you don't have to give your name, right? Except that they're specifically prohibited from offering that.
The regulatory cost of establishing a new card is effectively the same whether you have a hundred users or a billion, so high regulatory costs put a disproportionate disadvantage on small and upstart networks, which would then have to charge higher fees, which would then cause no one to accept them.
The regulations destroy competition and without competition you don't have a free market.
That's a lot harder because they have more of a network effect. People have a Visa or MasterCard because it's widely accepted and it's widely accepted because a lot of people have one.
The solution to this is to make it easier for people to get or accept the alternative payment network. Only now you're into regulatory barriers.
The critical feature of PornCard is that you don't have to give your name, right? Except that they're specifically prohibited from offering that.
The regulatory cost of establishing a new card is effectively the same whether you have a hundred users or a billion, so high regulatory costs put a disproportionate disadvantage on small and upstart networks, which would then have to charge higher fees, which would then cause no one to accept them.
The regulations destroy competition and without competition you don't have a free market.
Thank you! It’s incredible that I had to wade through so many comments discussing this news without getting to the heart of it. Network effects breed centralization via a lack of competition. Companies whose products or services have network effects can abuse that power in many ways, including discriminating against customers or content, as Visa/MasterCard/PayPal/Stripe regularly do. This compels everyone to have to act the way these companies dictate, which is a huge problem for any free society.
I agree with you that some regulations are harmful and are just plain old regulatory capture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture) that protects the big incumbents. But we need well-targeted regulation for this situation where the size of existing networks prevents new payment processors from participating and having a shot in the economy. one option is that once you’re above a certain size, providers benefiting from network effects must be treated like a government entity, just like we regulate utilities. After all, services like payment processing are incredibly fundamental to our society’s operation. Another option is to force interoperability so that a new small business doesn’t face an insurmountable barrier to competition.
I agree with you that some regulations are harmful and are just plain old regulatory capture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture) that protects the big incumbents. But we need well-targeted regulation for this situation where the size of existing networks prevents new payment processors from participating and having a shot in the economy. one option is that once you’re above a certain size, providers benefiting from network effects must be treated like a government entity, just like we regulate utilities. After all, services like payment processing are incredibly fundamental to our society’s operation. Another option is to force interoperability so that a new small business doesn’t face an insurmountable barrier to competition.
It’s a Monopoly. Or in this case of Visa/MasterCard, a duopoly. There are laws to break up monopolies/duopolies. In the case of an oligarchy, there are laws to break up anticompetitive behavior and collusions.
If only there was a Standardized Electronic Payments API supported by all banks, perhaps with interoperable bank account numbers. Then you could just send money to any account without the need for credit card providers.
I wonder if FedNow would help, whenever that is supposedly supposed to show up. Then there wouldn't necessarily be a need for intermediary payment networks in the first place.
I hope these have two different accounts and you can only -push- payments with a unique transaction idea. I hate the current system of the input and output account having the same number for banks.
> The problem isn't that you need an alternative to PayPal, you need an alternative to Visa and MasterCard.
Isn’t that exactly what crypto is?
Isn’t that exactly what crypto is?
It's far too fractured, speculative and volatile to be any sort of competition. It was probably started with those intentions and stable coins are trying to do that but the major coins are all pretty useless at this point for proper transactions. No large site wants to touch crypto as a viable payment method. Plus the reputation of being used for drugs and blackmail is hampering Bitcoin
This is a common misconception (I blame American politics). In _perfect competition_ this would hold true; however a _free_ market is not guaranteed to be competitive, much less close to _perfect_ competition.
[deleted]
It's not just competition, in credit card space, you basically have a duopoly with Visa and Mastercard.
If we were talking about bars, then yes, you have thousands of bars, and if legal, it wouldnt be hard to find a naked bar. But with two companies, you're far away from free-anything.
If we were talking about bars, then yes, you have thousands of bars, and if legal, it wouldnt be hard to find a naked bar. But with two companies, you're far away from free-anything.
Absolutely that's why we have to have regulations. The larger companies get the more they tend toward being monopolies and warping the idea of free markets.
"if there's demand for it (a payment processor that accepts porn), there would be supply"
There are hindreds of millions of consumers not enough demand?
There are hindreds of millions of consumers not enough demand?
Where this always falls short is when there is not enough demand make it possible to run a business on said demand.
This is usually startups biggest problem - there exists demand, but not enough demand in the right mix to be able to make a living/business/millions/etc... filling it.
This is usually startups biggest problem - there exists demand, but not enough demand in the right mix to be able to make a living/business/millions/etc... filling it.
Well, where is it? If it doesn't exist, then why? What economic theory predicts the status quo?
BTW, the theory of the "free market" also predicts that there should be no long term economic profit, ever, provided that perfect competition exists.
BTW, the theory of the "free market" also predicts that there should be no long term economic profit, ever, provided that perfect competition exists.
I refuse to believe this is some free market issue of payment processors wanting the right to not interact with businesses they find morally objectionable.
This is about liability and regulation. The processors are scared to process these transactions. It's not that they don't want to.
This is about liability and regulation. The processors are scared to process these transactions. It's not that they don't want to.
You can prove that, right? Because, as I said, there's no law against processing porn payments, and risk can be mitigated by just charging more. Your refusal to believe anything is irrelevant.
Why is the burden of proof what's important? Can you prove that it isn't.
How does one go about proving the intent of a company? That concept is irrelevant
How does one go about proving the intent of a company? That concept is irrelevant
The reason nobody can compete is because of regulations. If it was a free market, there wouldn't be so many regulations, and people would be able to compete.
The unfortunate truth is that anarchy is better than a weak democracy, because weak democracies just become oligarchies with more steps.
Ofc, a strong democracy is better than either, and regulations are extremely important. But in this case, those regulations are more for the oligarchs than the people.
If you really want a great example of anarchy vs oligarchy, take note that the anarchy of the private world ran Trump into the ground repeatedly and called him a loser while our public world gave him all the power it could and started a cult. Anarchy isn't great, but it's better than that.
The unfortunate truth is that anarchy is better than a weak democracy, because weak democracies just become oligarchies with more steps.
Ofc, a strong democracy is better than either, and regulations are extremely important. But in this case, those regulations are more for the oligarchs than the people.
If you really want a great example of anarchy vs oligarchy, take note that the anarchy of the private world ran Trump into the ground repeatedly and called him a loser while our public world gave him all the power it could and started a cult. Anarchy isn't great, but it's better than that.
> They do it simply because of risk and to protect their corporate image.
They're only allowed to operate because they're licensed by the government, and the government can yank their license at any time.
They're only allowed to operate because they're licensed by the government, and the government can yank their license at any time.
Okay, so, let me ask you a question: there are payment processors that process adult transactions; has a single one had its license pulled because of that? I can't find a single instance of that happening, only more instances of adult content providers being targeted this way: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/payment-processors-are...
I'm not aware of any instances of payment processors getting shut down, but government administrations have indeed had policies of greater scrutiny of "vice" businesses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
Perhaps not, but it's not exactly leaving them alone either:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pa8xy9/is-the-doj-forcing-ba...
So? Spin off everything "risky" into another corporate entity, and charge more. The simple fact that they don't do this tells me they just don't want to.
This is America, nobody will ever take seriously the argument that it's not the government doing it when they can get cheap internet points by saying "but muh freedoms!1!!"
If an article asking questions about it from 2014 is the most compelling piece of evidence that this is a serious issue then I'd say it isn't particularly compelling.
Note that the "Operation Chokepoint" wasn't just about porn - it was also shutting down payday lenders and firearm dealers. The operation was stopped by the government in 2016 and bipartisan legislation passed in 2017 to stop it happening again: https://www.forbes.com/sites/norbertmichel/2018/11/05/newly-...
Note that the "Operation Chokepoint" wasn't just about porn - it was also shutting down payday lenders and firearm dealers. The operation was stopped by the government in 2016 and bipartisan legislation passed in 2017 to stop it happening again: https://www.forbes.com/sites/norbertmichel/2018/11/05/newly-...
I find it utterly fascinating that Reddit is able to maintain such a huge porn collection with relatively little attention. I wish I knew what percentage of submissions were in NSFW subreddits, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were the majority.
Maybe it's because they're not trying to make money off of it? I don't think they run ads on NSFW subreddits.
I wonder if there's a market for something like how strip clubs operate -- where the artist pays OnlyFans to stream there, and then the artist collects their income some other way (e.g. Patreon, or just direct cash equivalents). That could in theory keep OnlyFans good with their payment processors, while still keeping this revenue stream at least somewhat open.
Maybe it's because they're not trying to make money off of it? I don't think they run ads on NSFW subreddits.
I wonder if there's a market for something like how strip clubs operate -- where the artist pays OnlyFans to stream there, and then the artist collects their income some other way (e.g. Patreon, or just direct cash equivalents). That could in theory keep OnlyFans good with their payment processors, while still keeping this revenue stream at least somewhat open.
> I find it utterly fascinating that Reddit is able to maintain such a huge porn collection with relatively little attention.
I suspect they're working in the same direction, no? For example a few months back they removed NSFW from /r/all. They didn't just make it user-config'd SFW by default, to my knowledge you cannot browse NSFW content on /r/all. So they sort of ghosted that entire genre on their site.
Maybe they'll stop there?
I suspect they're working in the same direction, no? For example a few months back they removed NSFW from /r/all. They didn't just make it user-config'd SFW by default, to my knowledge you cannot browse NSFW content on /r/all. So they sort of ghosted that entire genre on their site.
Maybe they'll stop there?
The problem with r/all is that iy does not show "all" since a long time.
They removed political spam and porn, but also lots of subreddits opt out to be shown there (e.g. sports subreddits).
As much as I hated the political spam from various TD clones, it is sad that there is no way to see "real" r/all and perhaps one that allows to remove porn and politics.
They removed political spam and porn, but also lots of subreddits opt out to be shown there (e.g. sports subreddits).
As much as I hated the political spam from various TD clones, it is sad that there is no way to see "real" r/all and perhaps one that allows to remove porn and politics.
Yea i also used to enjoy it more when i believed it to be literally "all" - as far as i can tell it's an alternate front page. My wife and i have different /r/all's for example, meaning they seem to rank links similarly to your subscribed frontpage.
The web is far more interesting to me when not curated for what something thinks i want.
The web is far more interesting to me when not curated for what something thinks i want.
I would love to see reddits real internal financial reports. I'm wonder if they've ever actually turned a profit...
>I find it utterly fascinating that Reddit is able to maintain such a huge porn collection with relatively little attention. I wish I knew what percentage of submissions were in NSFW subreddits, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were the majority.
All reddit NSFW content has been removed from /r/popular and /r/all about two months ago.
I think they're getting ready for an IPO.
All that porn probably won't be there anymore in a few years.
All reddit NSFW content has been removed from /r/popular and /r/all about two months ago.
I think they're getting ready for an IPO.
All that porn probably won't be there anymore in a few years.
> All reddit NSFW content has been removed from /r/popular and /r/all about two months ago.
I think they're getting ready for an IPO.
Bingo. Back in the days one of the most popular subreddit was /r/jailbait (I won't explain what that is here, you can search for it in DuckDuckGo in private mode). Back in the days free speech was huge on Reddit and the admins did quite the mental gymnastics to appease the concerns of the community over free speech. Of course this was done just around the time they got investor money.
Not that I mourn the loss of this kind of content but it really makes you think how low free speech have fallen in terms of priorities going from "we won't even ban jailbait" to "let's ban distasteful subs" and being more prude than my religious grandma in certain aspects. Now it's nearly impossible to post a link in the default subs and nearly all the top comments are obviously bought accounts.
Bingo. Back in the days one of the most popular subreddit was /r/jailbait (I won't explain what that is here, you can search for it in DuckDuckGo in private mode). Back in the days free speech was huge on Reddit and the admins did quite the mental gymnastics to appease the concerns of the community over free speech. Of course this was done just around the time they got investor money.
Not that I mourn the loss of this kind of content but it really makes you think how low free speech have fallen in terms of priorities going from "we won't even ban jailbait" to "let's ban distasteful subs" and being more prude than my religious grandma in certain aspects. Now it's nearly impossible to post a link in the default subs and nearly all the top comments are obviously bought accounts.
Given how janky the last few years of website updates on reddit have been, the sheer user hostility might be reason enough alongside 0 monetization that keeps it afloat.
It really seems weird to me that with all the countries that allow various forms of sex work, payment processing is still such a bottleneck.
As I understand it, independent providers doing 100% legal work in their countries live in terror of their payments being cut off due to the factors mentioned above.
Where is the CoinBase of legal erotica?
As I understand it, independent providers doing 100% legal work in their countries live in terror of their payments being cut off due to the factors mentioned above.
Where is the CoinBase of legal erotica?
I wonder if crypto has finally found its "killer app". Pseudo privacy, no charge backs, permissionless.
For consumers, “no chargebacks” is an anti feature. Chargebacks are common by porn consumers for both invalid reasons—-like denying that you did bought porn to a spouse—and valid reasons—like a shady site over charging you. Both things are quite common in this space.
With crypto you can not be overcharged because you approve the transaction before any money is sent vs giving the site the details to pull money from your account.
I still agree that no chargebacks is an issue though.
I still agree that no chargebacks is an issue though.
That actually undermines the gym-style business model of a lot of porn sites where they rely on people subscribing and not using it much.
That's what it was back in the Silk Road times, wasn't it? Hopefully it will go back to that
That was "SpankChain", I believe.
Which is a scam along with any other porn themed coin. Every sex worker I’ve ever met holds bitcoin (maybe ether if they newer in this space). Sex workers know what is money and what is a fraud.
Free speech, separation of church and state has nothing to do with it. Not wanting to be associated with rape, child and revenge porn (variations on non-consent) is all it is.
User submitted content is so much harder to verify facts about (consent in particular) and as long as the user submitted content is sexual in nature, it is legal plutonium.
User submitted content is so much harder to verify facts about (consent in particular) and as long as the user submitted content is sexual in nature, it is legal plutonium.
A lot of the attacks against amateur porn and sex work are by religious groups masking their actual motive by focusing on consent verification. Verification raises the barrier and makes performers much more vulnerable since their legal identities are attached to their work.
https://newrepublic.com/article/160488/nick-kristof-holy-war...
https://newrepublic.com/article/160488/nick-kristof-holy-war...
> Verification raises the barrier and makes performers much more vulnerable since their legal identities are attached to their work.
Producers should have been doing this anyway.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257
> "... create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction."
Producers should have been doing this anyway.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257
> "... create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction."
The industrial producers have been doing that for decades. The problem is that the real goal of these groups is to make sex work harder, not safer.
For example, research on the take-down of reputable sex work sites harms workers by removing their opportunities for safe work.
> the financial situation of the vast majority of research participants has deteriorated, as has their ability to access community and screen clients.
https://antitraffickingreview.org/index.php/atrjournal/artic...
For example, research on the take-down of reputable sex work sites harms workers by removing their opportunities for safe work.
> the financial situation of the vast majority of research participants has deteriorated, as has their ability to access community and screen clients.
https://antitraffickingreview.org/index.php/atrjournal/artic...
Yep. It's pure FUD used to moralize and control behavior of consenting adults. It's one step removed from criminalizing homosexuality and abortions.
I’m of the impression that consent is a legitimate problem? Lots of pornography is wrapped up in sex trafficking never mind revenge porn, or so I’ve heard.
[deleted]
Consent is a real issue. The problem is advocates apply pressure to eliminate sex work even under clear consent, because safety isn't their actual goal. See OnlyFans, Craigslist for example.
So what? There are legitimate arguments to having consent verification, and the things they prevent are about as far from victimless crimes as you can get- what happens on the internet, stays on the internet, leading to a lifetime of re-victimization.
Just because people you don't like are for something does not mean that you must automatically be against it.
Just because people you don't like are for something does not mean that you must automatically be against it.
I don't think we should expect a policy to serve the stated purpose when the people driving it have entirely different reasons for pushing it.
For example, when states strengthen regulations on abortion clinics with the stated goal of improving patient safety, but the driving forces behind the legislation are anti-abortion groups who know that rural abortion providers will have to close, creating large unserved areas... will those laws help or hurt the safety of women who want abortions?
Likewise, we should be wary of consent verification laws that are pushed by groups whose supporters are opposed to legal pornography.
In both cases the goal is not to protect women. The goal is to take something morally wrong and make it seedy, underground, and dangerous, like morally wrong things are supposed to be.
For example, when states strengthen regulations on abortion clinics with the stated goal of improving patient safety, but the driving forces behind the legislation are anti-abortion groups who know that rural abortion providers will have to close, creating large unserved areas... will those laws help or hurt the safety of women who want abortions?
Likewise, we should be wary of consent verification laws that are pushed by groups whose supporters are opposed to legal pornography.
In both cases the goal is not to protect women. The goal is to take something morally wrong and make it seedy, underground, and dangerous, like morally wrong things are supposed to be.
In the case of identity verification:
The Craigslist shutdown seemed mostly driven by anti-sex work motivations
The Pornhub identity verification changes were driven by women who had been tricked into having their videos appeared and sued Pornhub over their inability to get them taken down: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pornhub-lawsuit-nonconsensual-v...
So yes - motivation is important. The identity verification requirements for performers on porn sites are at least partially driven by actual victim complaints.
So it is at least partially to protect women.
The Craigslist shutdown seemed mostly driven by anti-sex work motivations
The Pornhub identity verification changes were driven by women who had been tricked into having their videos appeared and sued Pornhub over their inability to get them taken down: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pornhub-lawsuit-nonconsensual-v...
So yes - motivation is important. The identity verification requirements for performers on porn sites are at least partially driven by actual victim complaints.
So it is at least partially to protect women.
"but the driving forces behind the legislation are anti-abortion groups"
This is the definition of an ad hominem, which is what the whole separation of church and state discussion is, since neither church nor state are involved here.
We arent discussing regulations, we are discussing payment processors choosing to not do business with video hosts who cannot prove legal consent was obtained from all involved.
If you ran a business, would you want to make money off of rape and child pornography? The payment processors chose "no", and that is their right.
This is the definition of an ad hominem, which is what the whole separation of church and state discussion is, since neither church nor state are involved here.
We arent discussing regulations, we are discussing payment processors choosing to not do business with video hosts who cannot prove legal consent was obtained from all involved.
If you ran a business, would you want to make money off of rape and child pornography? The payment processors chose "no", and that is their right.
Ad hominem is an appropriate form of reasoning in this case, although in context you might pronounce it "cui bono." It's reasonable to expect that when a group pushes a policy, the details of the policy will be engineered to serve their goals, and the policy will be tweaked over time to serve their goals better. Corporations want to make them happy so they can do business in peace. What will make them happy? Will it make them happy if most porn is created by workers who enjoy robust assurances that their autonomy, consent, and medical safety will be respected? Or would they regard that as a nightmare of legitimized industrial-scale psychological harm to women?
In porn as in abortion, prohibitionists are numerous and committed enough to be a force to reckoned with, but they strategically justify their work using reasons that the rest of society finds persuasive. Anti-abortionists believe that abortion is inherently wrong, but they talk about women's safety while they shut down clinics.
The difference is, the groups who care about the safety of women will look at the details and say, the effect of this supposed "reproductive safety" bill is that thousands of women will lose access to legal abortion. Even if it targets shortcomings at poorly staffed, decrepit facilities, they won't support it if it actually makes women less safe. Overall, will shutting down OnlyFans payments make things better or worse for the women on it? People who aren't asking that question don't actually care.
In porn as in abortion, prohibitionists are numerous and committed enough to be a force to reckoned with, but they strategically justify their work using reasons that the rest of society finds persuasive. Anti-abortionists believe that abortion is inherently wrong, but they talk about women's safety while they shut down clinics.
The difference is, the groups who care about the safety of women will look at the details and say, the effect of this supposed "reproductive safety" bill is that thousands of women will lose access to legal abortion. Even if it targets shortcomings at poorly staffed, decrepit facilities, they won't support it if it actually makes women less safe. Overall, will shutting down OnlyFans payments make things better or worse for the women on it? People who aren't asking that question don't actually care.
It is still the inverse of an appeal to authority. Both "Agree about X because Y agreed" and "Disagree about X because Y agreed" are faulty logic.
Replacing skepticism and critical analysis isn't doing anyone any favors, and it doesn't make the matter at hand an issue of church or state.
Replacing skepticism and critical analysis isn't doing anyone any favors, and it doesn't make the matter at hand an issue of church or state.
"So what?" as a response to a post explaining how a policy puts certain people at risk, regardless of what the policy is and who those certain people are, makes how you view those people quite a lot clearer than you may have intended.
The person I responded to implied that the arguments in favor of consent verification were made in bad faith because some people might also oppose porn in general.
It is a logical fallacy. The risk of de-anonymization doesn't go away because their consent wasn't verified- tattoos, birthmarks, backgrounds of images and video, etc are still there.
Not only that, but that same risk still applies to people whose videos were posted without consent. What's worse than being raped and having your video put online? Knowing that everyone you ever work with may have seen it, for the rest of your life.
Also, if you read the article the post attached, it literally opens with a woman who had to impersonate a lawyer to get porn of her taken off of pornhub.
"How I view those people" seems to be your imagination, not mine.
It is a logical fallacy. The risk of de-anonymization doesn't go away because their consent wasn't verified- tattoos, birthmarks, backgrounds of images and video, etc are still there.
Not only that, but that same risk still applies to people whose videos were posted without consent. What's worse than being raped and having your video put online? Knowing that everyone you ever work with may have seen it, for the rest of your life.
Also, if you read the article the post attached, it literally opens with a woman who had to impersonate a lawyer to get porn of her taken off of pornhub.
"How I view those people" seems to be your imagination, not mine.
Context and quantification are needed, not sensationalism.
Yes there are real accounts of abuse. The problem is that the policies adopted aren't actually directed at solving those problems with minimum harm to people involved; they are directed at eliminating sex work.
How many problems occur, what kind, what protocols would address the problems without needlessly harming performers and consumers?
How many problems occur, what kind, what protocols would address the problems without needlessly harming performers and consumers?
> What's worse than being raped and having your video put online? Knowing that everyone you ever work with may have seen it, for the rest of your life.
There's no mechanism I can imagine that would make this situation true. HOW would everyone have seen it? Are you aware of just how many porn videos/pictures there are in the world?
You'd be well served to post a stat for how many people have had their coworkers see their rape videos, I'd bet $$$ that it's a negligible number compared to the livelihood issues suffered by onlyfans removing all those creators.
There's no mechanism I can imagine that would make this situation true. HOW would everyone have seen it? Are you aware of just how many porn videos/pictures there are in the world?
You'd be well served to post a stat for how many people have had their coworkers see their rape videos, I'd bet $$$ that it's a negligible number compared to the livelihood issues suffered by onlyfans removing all those creators.
> what happens on the internet, stays on the internet, leading to a lifetime of re-victimization
Nonsense. The odds of you stumbling upon a particular porn photo or video are miniscule unless you are specifically searching for it or it's very popular (which is very hard and not going to happen for unwilling pictures).
Particularly as most sites would take down images of you on request.
Nonsense. The odds of you stumbling upon a particular porn photo or video are miniscule unless you are specifically searching for it or it's very popular (which is very hard and not going to happen for unwilling pictures).
Particularly as most sites would take down images of you on request.
By this logic, separation of church and state doesn't matter to you as long as you can construct some legitimate arguments in favor of theocracy.
No, the logic is that separation of church and state is a red herring.
Payment processors are choosing to not associate with businesses that cannot demonstrate that legal consent was gained from everyone involved in the production of the videos.
There's neither church nor state involved here.
Payment processors are choosing to not associate with businesses that cannot demonstrate that legal consent was gained from everyone involved in the production of the videos.
There's neither church nor state involved here.
This is just a variation of the ontological argument.
You say there's neither church nor state, but then you cite payment processors and legal consent, which are both constructs that are determined by the state. And the content that's in question is sexual consent. The idea that there should be an additional mind (e.g. a legal mind) regulating the behaviors of sexual participants is an old religious conservative idea.
If you still insist that the church in this sense has no meaning, and that this isn't a question of church and state, then you don't believe that there is fundamentally a problem of church and state at all, which in itself is an old religious conservative idea.
You say there's neither church nor state, but then you cite payment processors and legal consent, which are both constructs that are determined by the state. And the content that's in question is sexual consent. The idea that there should be an additional mind (e.g. a legal mind) regulating the behaviors of sexual participants is an old religious conservative idea.
If you still insist that the church in this sense has no meaning, and that this isn't a question of church and state, then you don't believe that there is fundamentally a problem of church and state at all, which in itself is an old religious conservative idea.
> You say there's neither church nor state, but then you cite payment processors and legal consent, which are both constructs that are determined by the state. And the content that's in question is sexual consent.
I don't think many people who believe in the separation of church and state would think that implies that the state doesn't have the ability to make and enforce laws around consent.
I don't think many people who believe in the separation of church and state would think that implies that the state doesn't have the ability to make and enforce laws around consent.
I am saying that state isnt involved in the sense that the state isn't compelling payment processors to make these decisions through regulation. Church isn't involved because there is no establishment of religion. I have presented, in several places, non-theological reasons why payment processors may be making the decisions they are.
If you want to count "choosing to not support a business that enables rapists and child porn" as exclusively an old conservative idea, I guess you are missing the mark by quite a lot.
If you want to count "choosing to not support a business that enables rapists and child porn" as exclusively an old conservative idea, I guess you are missing the mark by quite a lot.
You've contradicted yourself multiple times. You've used the legal categories of rape and child pornography to try to justify the motives of a legal entity. The entire basis of motivation that you yourself have presented is instantiated within the context of a state authority.
The institution of a church in the theological sense has nothing to do with a legally registered organization. The domain of the church, in the sense of "separation of church and state", is in the psychology and interal belief structures of the mass of people. The Enlightenment thinkers who asserted a separation of church and state were not making an assertion about mere legal technicality.
The institution of a church in the theological sense has nothing to do with a legally registered organization. The domain of the church, in the sense of "separation of church and state", is in the psychology and interal belief structures of the mass of people. The Enlightenment thinkers who asserted a separation of church and state were not making an assertion about mere legal technicality.
> The institution of a church in the theological sense has nothing to do with a legally registered organization. The domain of the church, in the sense of "separation of church and state", is in the psychology and interal belief structures of the mass of people. The Enlightenment thinkers who asserted a separation of church and state were not making an assertion about mere legal technicality.
Just pointing out that this seems to be your own interpretation and isn't held in any legal doctrine I've been able to find.
In-fact it doesn't have a lot of historical or academic backing either: Historically, the separation of church and state was about removing the special benefits of state-sanctioned religions so that other churches could exist.
That was explicitly about the legally registered organisation, and you can see this now in how legally registered churches are constantly trying to find ways to legally divorce themselves from linked entities so those entities can receive state funding. That is 100% about the legally registered organisations.
Just pointing out that this seems to be your own interpretation and isn't held in any legal doctrine I've been able to find.
In-fact it doesn't have a lot of historical or academic backing either: Historically, the separation of church and state was about removing the special benefits of state-sanctioned religions so that other churches could exist.
That was explicitly about the legally registered organisation, and you can see this now in how legally registered churches are constantly trying to find ways to legally divorce themselves from linked entities so those entities can receive state funding. That is 100% about the legally registered organisations.
> Let us now consider what a church is. A church, then, I take to be a voluntary society of men, joining themselves together of their own accord in order to the public worshipping of God in such manner as they judge acceptable to Him, and effectual to the salvation of their souls.
Where do you see "legally registered organization" in this defintion?
Of course, within existing legal doctrine, "separation of church and state" could only refer to legal technicalities. And that's the whole point I was making, that separation goes both ways. For you to redefine the idea behind separation of church and state in merely legal terms is itself a breach of that separation.
Where do you see "legally registered organization" in this defintion?
Of course, within existing legal doctrine, "separation of church and state" could only refer to legal technicalities. And that's the whole point I was making, that separation goes both ways. For you to redefine the idea behind separation of church and state in merely legal terms is itself a breach of that separation.
[deleted]
Verification is obviously necessary to prevent revenge porn.
If that inconveniences performers, then that’s their problem to deal with. We shouldn’t be focused on making things easy for performers if that happens at the expense of allowing revenge porn.
If that inconveniences performers, then that’s their problem to deal with. We shouldn’t be focused on making things easy for performers if that happens at the expense of allowing revenge porn.
Revenge porn is just another form of harassment. The problem isn't it being uploaded to pornhub, the problem is a dickhead sending it to all the victims contacts. It becomes a non-issue with reactive takedowns and going after those who repeatedly upload it as you would any other form of deliberate harassment.
Going after porn sites does nothing really to stop the harassment (they can just send the pic or video directly rather than a link).
Going after porn sites does nothing really to stop the harassment (they can just send the pic or video directly rather than a link).
I don't see how a payment processor is "being associated" with the content. Deciding whether that sort of thing is happening really shouldn't be their purview.
Because Exodus Cry campaigned for it
https://mobile.twitter.com/GustavoTurnerX/status/14284408173...
https://mobile.twitter.com/GustavoTurnerX/status/14284408173...
This is why I love HN, you gave me a surprising, but after evaluating your links trustworthy explanation.
Thank you!
If anyone else is wondering Exodus Cry is an organization which originated out of a weekly prayer group founded 2007 [0], they apparently lobbied Mastercard to only accept providers which verify the identity of all performers & review content before any upload [1]. Which is almost impossible for the tubes / no more payment
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Cry
[1] https://www.mastercard.com/news/perspectives/2021/protecting...
Thank you!
If anyone else is wondering Exodus Cry is an organization which originated out of a weekly prayer group founded 2007 [0], they apparently lobbied Mastercard to only accept providers which verify the identity of all performers & review content before any upload [1]. Which is almost impossible for the tubes / no more payment
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Cry
[1] https://www.mastercard.com/news/perspectives/2021/protecting...
> I don't see how a payment processor is "being associated" with the content
They are literally facilitating the transaction.... Handling payments which determine access to the content is very much "being associated".
> Deciding whether that sort of thing is happening really shouldn't be their purview.
That is their purview. Who they choose to process payments for, and the various rates based on content and risk, is the entire purpose of their business.
They are literally facilitating the transaction.... Handling payments which determine access to the content is very much "being associated".
> Deciding whether that sort of thing is happening really shouldn't be their purview.
That is their purview. Who they choose to process payments for, and the various rates based on content and risk, is the entire purpose of their business.
Risk I understand. But that's not really an issue here. These are relatively small payments, and it is easy to see what percentage end up causing them trouble. I doubt it is any higher than anything else.
Content, no. My email provider doesn't get involved in what I am emailing (even though they might be "facilitating" a crime or other unsavory), the car dealership doesn't get involved in what I am going to use the car for. I mean by your logic a grocery store could ask what business you are in, and not sell you food because that is facilitating what you are doing.
Sure, if law enforcement and courts get involved, then they can stop being a provider.
But to suggest that it somehow reflects badly on the credit card company that they are used on a porn site is ridiculous.
Content, no. My email provider doesn't get involved in what I am emailing (even though they might be "facilitating" a crime or other unsavory), the car dealership doesn't get involved in what I am going to use the car for. I mean by your logic a grocery store could ask what business you are in, and not sell you food because that is facilitating what you are doing.
Sure, if law enforcement and courts get involved, then they can stop being a provider.
But to suggest that it somehow reflects badly on the credit card company that they are used on a porn site is ridiculous.
> My email provider doesn't get involved in what I am emailing (even though they might be "facilitating" a crime or other unsavory),
I guarantee you they do. This is right from SendGrid:
__Twilio SendGrid Email prohibits sending of any content that is illegal or content that is harmful, unwanted, inappropriate, objectionable, confirmed to be criminal misinformation, or otherwise poses a threat to the public, even if the content is permissible by law. This content is not allowed, regardless of user consent.__
They then have a huge list of prohibited topics. Pornography, misinformation, hate speech, etc.
I recommend you check your provider TOS.
> the car dealership doesn't get involved in what I am going to use the car for
Car dealerships are free to refuse you service for any reason, other than being a protected class. I guarantee there is a long list of activities you could tell a dealership you'd do, and they'd refuse you service.
> I mean by your logic a grocery store could ask what business you are in, and not sell you food because that is facilitating what you are doing.
Yes, this is literally the case, lol. Not just by logic, but by actual reality. A grocery store can refuse you service for any reason other than discrimination of a protected class.
You need to update yourself with the laws in this country.
> But to suggest that it somehow reflects badly on the credit card company that they are used on a porn site is ridiculous.
They are free to do business with anyone they see fit. Pornography comes with the significant risk of actual harm to people. Therefore, they don't want to be involved.
If you don't like it, maybe capitalism isn't for you.
I guarantee you they do. This is right from SendGrid:
__Twilio SendGrid Email prohibits sending of any content that is illegal or content that is harmful, unwanted, inappropriate, objectionable, confirmed to be criminal misinformation, or otherwise poses a threat to the public, even if the content is permissible by law. This content is not allowed, regardless of user consent.__
They then have a huge list of prohibited topics. Pornography, misinformation, hate speech, etc.
I recommend you check your provider TOS.
> the car dealership doesn't get involved in what I am going to use the car for
Car dealerships are free to refuse you service for any reason, other than being a protected class. I guarantee there is a long list of activities you could tell a dealership you'd do, and they'd refuse you service.
> I mean by your logic a grocery store could ask what business you are in, and not sell you food because that is facilitating what you are doing.
Yes, this is literally the case, lol. Not just by logic, but by actual reality. A grocery store can refuse you service for any reason other than discrimination of a protected class.
You need to update yourself with the laws in this country.
> But to suggest that it somehow reflects badly on the credit card company that they are used on a porn site is ridiculous.
They are free to do business with anyone they see fit. Pornography comes with the significant risk of actual harm to people. Therefore, they don't want to be involved.
If you don't like it, maybe capitalism isn't for you.
"If you don't like it, maybe capitalism isn't for you."
I'm kinda on the fence, but you're making a good case against it.
I'm kinda on the fence, but you're making a good case against it.
> User submitted content is so much harder to verify facts about
That doesn't seem to be stopping e-Bay and such. I don't believe that payment processors have any idea what are people buying and selling.
That doesn't seem to be stopping e-Bay and such. I don't believe that payment processors have any idea what are people buying and selling.
As of this year you can no longer sell on eBay without going through full KYC, including SSN (not EIN), providing a physical bank account, etc. If you are selling as a company, including a multi-owner or multi-person company you are still required to provide full personal details for the people involved and any beneficial owners.
Ebay has the same kind of rules, prohibiting "sexually oriented materials" and allowing nudity "only in limited situations". (https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/prohibited-restricted-ite...)
Stolen items are fenced on eBay. The payment processors don't have an issue with actual crimes like theft but want to impose a moral code on legal behavior.
Be realistic, if I offer stolen set of fancy hubcaps or something (ie something potentially expensive but doesn't have a serial # like a computer) there's no real way to tell if it's legit or not. If I offer porn for sale and there's an anti-porn policy, they can just say 'welp this is porn to us.'
Like how would you distinguish between a stolen item and a used item without requiring people to keep every receipt for anything they ever buy? This is not an endorsement of their anti-porn policy, just observing that that it's easy for them to implement that in contrast to your theft example.
Like how would you distinguish between a stolen item and a used item without requiring people to keep every receipt for anything they ever buy? This is not an endorsement of their anti-porn policy, just observing that that it's easy for them to implement that in contrast to your theft example.
It’s not about morals, it’s about chargebacks. That’s why.
Then you charge a higher merchant fee.
They could do that. Or they could choose not to be involved in that sort of business.
Can you explain in more detail? I just don't see the analogy you're drawing here. People may sometimes fence stolen items on Ebay, but you're not allowed to, and payment processors would definitely cut them off if you were.
Maybe that people may sometimes post illegal porn on OnlyFans but you're not allowed to either?
User-traded goods on e-Bay are also much harder to verify facts about than goods from a brick-and-mortar shop. Doesn't seem to prevent e-Bay from operating.
User-traded goods on e-Bay are also much harder to verify facts about than goods from a brick-and-mortar shop. Doesn't seem to prevent e-Bay from operating.
How is banning theft any less arbitrary than banning porn?
Except "sexually oriented materials" are not the same thing as illegal goods. I was NOT talking about "sexually oriented materials".
c'mon man
My understanding is that this industry has way higher than average chargeback/fraud rates, which is really what discourages payment processors/banks from wanting to support them.
Look into "Operation Choke Point". It was an Obama era DOJ program to control payment processors in order to block things they didn't like.
Though whether that's a convenient excuse for prudishness or not, we'll never know (because you can't collect data on chargebacks if you don't allow any sex sites to make charges in the first place).
Banks are notoriously risk-averse. This is a disruption waiting to happen for the first person who can crack handling sex-worker credit card payments despite the banks.
Banks are notoriously risk-averse. This is a disruption waiting to happen for the first person who can crack handling sex-worker credit card payments despite the banks.
True, but I think there's obvious legs to it. Some common reasons for fraud are:
* Laundering money (buy accounts with stolen cards, sell them using crypto to people who don't want to be associated with the accounts).
* People falsely claiming fraud to cover up the payments (ex. a spouse finding out about them).
* More specific to OF, people paying for private/custom content and then filing a chargeback.
I think people being prudish is kind of what allows this market to be ripe with fraud. I'm not sure there's a way to "disrupt" this industry using credit cards just due to the inherent tendency for fraud in the market.
* Laundering money (buy accounts with stolen cards, sell them using crypto to people who don't want to be associated with the accounts).
* People falsely claiming fraud to cover up the payments (ex. a spouse finding out about them).
* More specific to OF, people paying for private/custom content and then filing a chargeback.
I think people being prudish is kind of what allows this market to be ripe with fraud. I'm not sure there's a way to "disrupt" this industry using credit cards just due to the inherent tendency for fraud in the market.
Yeah, I get that. I think things are changing. Younger people are more willing to be open about their use of porn, and more accepting of things like OF.
I don't think there's anything intrinsic about the sex industry that makes it more fraudulent. I think it's much more about the prudishness and societal attitudes that makes it so. Also the long association with organised crime, obviously.
I wonder how this works in countries (like the Scandinavians) where the sex industry is more accepted and there's less prudishness? Are the banks still excluding them there?
I don't think there's anything intrinsic about the sex industry that makes it more fraudulent. I think it's much more about the prudishness and societal attitudes that makes it so. Also the long association with organised crime, obviously.
I wonder how this works in countries (like the Scandinavians) where the sex industry is more accepted and there's less prudishness? Are the banks still excluding them there?
>Banks are notoriously risk-averse.
Except in 2008 when they were idiotic. I felt the need to point out that one specific data point among the trend that otherwise agrees with you.
Except in 2008 when they were idiotic. I felt the need to point out that one specific data point among the trend that otherwise agrees with you.
I think there's a huge difference between the investment arms of banks, who deal with risk a lot, and the retail arms of banks, who avoid it whenever possible.
Selling porn site accounts is a popular way to turn stolen credit card details into untraceable cryptocurrencies.
That means there is already an userbase for crypto porn.
That means there is already an userbase for crypto porn.
Why can't the payment processor just come to an agreement with OnlyFans to hold back some reserve funds to cover the high chargeback/fraud rate?
Because of your chargeback rate is persistently high enough, the payment networks will cut you off irrespective of processor.
If it was just covering the chargebacks it'd be easy.
If it was just covering the chargebacks it'd be easy.
It's my understanding that PH is the only adult site with this issue. They got in hot water because of a series of high-profile lawsuits and media pieces about exploitation videos on their platform.
OF would likely not run into this because all of its content creators are verified and can only post videos of themselves or videos they have the rights to; it's not a free-for-all upload fest like PH used to be.
OF would likely not run into this because all of its content creators are verified and can only post videos of themselves or videos they have the rights to; it's not a free-for-all upload fest like PH used to be.
PH is having problems due to so much "user uploaded" content that they can not verify the identity of the actors contained within. The difference now is that Mastercard is enforcing the rules rather than the US Government which had USC2257 in place for many years with the same requirements. The difference this time is that MC is global(and controls these sites income) and USGov is not, so MC is actually able to enforce this. Adult content sites with their IDs in order(as all US based ones should have already) will have no problem under the new rules. It's not a closing down of the business its actual enforcement of rules that have been on the books for 20+ years by a private entity instead of the lax USGov.
Lets be real, if PH had a way to take monies without having to clean up to save face for the card issuers, it would still be business as usual.
Lets be real, if PH had a way to take monies without having to clean up to save face for the card issuers, it would still be business as usual.
It’s my understanding that PornHub have purged out non-verified content to fully comply with things such as USC2257 and gone further than the letter of the law in a desire to clean up their image and yet MasterCard, Visa and Discover still refuse them.
This is not as simple as “follow the law”. OnlyFans already appears to require sufficient identification that at least for account owners they pass the USC2257 bar, so content featuring just the account holder should completely pass legal scrutiny in the USA.
Yet they still have this pressure from MasterCard and the discussion isn’t about type of adult content (performers other than the account holder) it’s about all adult content. This is someone who saw the successful pressure tactics work on PornHub and wants to go further.
It’s also important to remember that MasterCard and Visa don’t directly offer services to anyone but banks/payment processors, so while there are “high risk” payment processors such as CCBill, etc, MasterCard as network operators are saying “for these specific people… no”.
This is not as simple as “follow the law”. OnlyFans already appears to require sufficient identification that at least for account owners they pass the USC2257 bar, so content featuring just the account holder should completely pass legal scrutiny in the USA.
Yet they still have this pressure from MasterCard and the discussion isn’t about type of adult content (performers other than the account holder) it’s about all adult content. This is someone who saw the successful pressure tactics work on PornHub and wants to go further.
It’s also important to remember that MasterCard and Visa don’t directly offer services to anyone but banks/payment processors, so while there are “high risk” payment processors such as CCBill, etc, MasterCard as network operators are saying “for these specific people… no”.
My point is that the sky isn’t falling and none of these rules are new, just finally being enforced by a different entity. I’m aware that visa/mc doesn’t offer services directly to merchants. But they still set the rules the ipsp’s( like cc bill, epoch, etc), merchant banks and others have to enforce on their shared clients. I have yet to see evidence of anyone being singled out, if you have, please share, otherwise it’s just a conspiracy theory. And frankly, anyone well informed has wondered why these companies were allowed to get away with this stuff for so long. They dared to keep pushing the limit of their agreements and skirted regs/laws via thousands of shell corps for too long. Time to pay the Piper. Between letting anyone upload anything, flaunting copyright, DMCA, and all the credit cross sell stuff, plus hiding is strange jurisdictions, tax avoidance, regulatory avoidance, etc. It’s about time!
Either way, responsible, well ran adult companies aren’t having processing issues. I think even PayPal is talking adult content sites again.
Either way, responsible, well ran adult companies aren’t having processing issues. I think even PayPal is talking adult content sites again.
I must give kudos to you for appearing to have a deeper knowledge of the p-tube segment of the industry than the average commenter here. I am more in agreement with your sentiment due to the various aspects you mention,
However i can't say the sky is not falling - it concerns me that this form of payment cancel culture will spread, and will be weaponized beyond the issues brought up for reasons to block PH and OF -
So long as it's easy for the V/MC mafia to boot places like them with out worrying about new competition or regulation, it will likely continue to be used in more nefarious campaigns of cancel in the future.
well ran large adult companies may enjoy the moat effects of smaller processing pools with higher fees, and I am glad to see paypal now accepting adult things..
However the higher fees and the smaller pool of processors willing to accept business with adult sites puts smaller and newer publishers at a huge disadvantage. Playboy may absorb the high fees and have no trouble finding banks willing to take their money - but the average wanna-be independent OF type influencer or independent cam girl will be set with high fees and lack of options for processing.
The small player must also be more worried about being cancelled and having their whole financial means terminated on a whim with no recourse - and to think that it would be easy for these companies to brush it off.
Not that I think v/MC should be forced by regulation to get money for every rando on the net with a cam - but we should be looking for easier alternatives for smaller groups to avoid being unbanked by a vocal minority.
I don't know if the answer is easier crypto, or some sort of rules to say if you process visa / mc you must also take some non-partisan cards / accounts that do not rely on credit ratings / moral objections - and not charge big fees - or something else entirely - but it's something I think is worth worrying about at this point.
However i can't say the sky is not falling - it concerns me that this form of payment cancel culture will spread, and will be weaponized beyond the issues brought up for reasons to block PH and OF -
So long as it's easy for the V/MC mafia to boot places like them with out worrying about new competition or regulation, it will likely continue to be used in more nefarious campaigns of cancel in the future.
well ran large adult companies may enjoy the moat effects of smaller processing pools with higher fees, and I am glad to see paypal now accepting adult things..
However the higher fees and the smaller pool of processors willing to accept business with adult sites puts smaller and newer publishers at a huge disadvantage. Playboy may absorb the high fees and have no trouble finding banks willing to take their money - but the average wanna-be independent OF type influencer or independent cam girl will be set with high fees and lack of options for processing.
The small player must also be more worried about being cancelled and having their whole financial means terminated on a whim with no recourse - and to think that it would be easy for these companies to brush it off.
Not that I think v/MC should be forced by regulation to get money for every rando on the net with a cam - but we should be looking for easier alternatives for smaller groups to avoid being unbanked by a vocal minority.
I don't know if the answer is easier crypto, or some sort of rules to say if you process visa / mc you must also take some non-partisan cards / accounts that do not rely on credit ratings / moral objections - and not charge big fees - or something else entirely - but it's something I think is worth worrying about at this point.
Thoughtful response, and nice to find someone that has a reasonable knowledge on the matter as well.
I do agree with your point about cancel culture and payments, it is rather scary what/who else they could come after. If they want to be a payment platform, they shouldn’t be picking sides and just be enforcing what laws they fall under instead. But the cut off public opinion is a harsh and unpredictable place.
I do agree with your point about cancel culture and payments, it is rather scary what/who else they could come after. If they want to be a payment platform, they shouldn’t be picking sides and just be enforcing what laws they fall under instead. But the cut off public opinion is a harsh and unpredictable place.
I wonder if the reason "sexually explicit content" isn't allowed is because that generally involves a partner. I believe OF requires ID verification before you can do _anything_ as a creator, so they're trying to curb that by making it essentially a solo website.
It might be a better idea to require all participants in videos to have their OF account linked and tagged in the video.
It might be a better idea to require all participants in videos to have their OF account linked and tagged in the video.
>We're seeing a sterilization of legitimate porn on the internet, done by legitimate tax paying western companies. It'll be left to whoever can operate beyond those constraints,
Why wouldn't it just revert back to how it was before all the amateur stuff got monetized over the past 5yr or so.
Why wouldn't it just revert back to how it was before all the amateur stuff got monetized over the past 5yr or so.
The thing is, only fans is significantly safer then street prostitution. As in, some people are getting back into serious risk.
Kind of like when they closed backpage. It went back - to situation I which sex seller risk more.
Kind of like when they closed backpage. It went back - to situation I which sex seller risk more.
There's a lot of people who are now in the habit of doing that and know how much money they can make. They're not all going to quietly go back to their old jobs.
PH got in trouble due to a NYT hit piece and is usual this is usually more of a corporate maneuver than an actual article done in the name of the public interest. See Pewdiepie who got one just about when he got a deal with Disney; surely pure coincidence.
The fact is, MindGeek, who operates PH and the others, is the reason all the corporate porn studios stopped making profits. When was the last time you saw a full length > 90 minutes porn movie produced after ~2010? This used to be a huge industry just as big than Hollywood.
A few days later low and behold the first thing MindGeek does is to stop people from downloading videos and only accept payments for studio made videos.
"Think of the children" is a meme at this point and should raise eyebrows whenever it is raised up as an argument.
The fact is, MindGeek, who operates PH and the others, is the reason all the corporate porn studios stopped making profits. When was the last time you saw a full length > 90 minutes porn movie produced after ~2010? This used to be a huge industry just as big than Hollywood.
A few days later low and behold the first thing MindGeek does is to stop people from downloading videos and only accept payments for studio made videos.
"Think of the children" is a meme at this point and should raise eyebrows whenever it is raised up as an argument.
I totally agree that OnlyFans is a legitimate and ethical site, but let's not kid ourselves about PornHub. It was mostly pirated content with a lot of videos of people being harmed.
While both those things are true, the 'mostly' part is not. There are a lot of couples and singles posting their exploits and OnlyFans creators trying to drive traffic to their feed. What are you searching for that got you those results??
Let's not kid ourselves about PornHub...
Let's not kid ourselves about PornHub...
Nobody was being harmed on Pornhub. Don't feed the lying anti-sex work media.
There were many examples of voyeur, creepshot, revenge and ex-partner videos.
None of which had the consent of all parties involved.
None of which had the consent of all parties involved.
Having those on porn sites is fundamentally harmless. No one stumbles across a coworkers revenge porn in practice, they get sent it by a vengeful person who acquired it by other means.
Sending a pic or video is not substantially more difficult than sending a link. The revenge porn stuff is a red herring.
Sending a pic or video is not substantially more difficult than sending a link. The revenge porn stuff is a red herring.
So in your opinion, revenge porn is harmless unless an acquaintance sees it?
That's an incredibly repulsive take. It's also increasingly illegal, so your opinion of it is thankfully irrelevant.
Also consider that we will eventually have face search for the internet, so someone could take a photo of you from LinkedIn and find all the places that face appears.
That's an incredibly repulsive take. It's also increasingly illegal, so your opinion of it is thankfully irrelevant.
Also consider that we will eventually have face search for the internet, so someone could take a photo of you from LinkedIn and find all the places that face appears.
They were, In 2020 they removed over 600,000 videos that contained abuse.
https://www.engadget.com/pornhub-first-transparency-report-1...
https://www.engadget.com/pornhub-first-transparency-report-1...
What about the company Girls Do Porn that PH refused to take down?
Some of those were literal rape videos.
Some of those were literal rape videos.
You are grossly misinformed. So much so I have to wonder why. PornHub JUST took down 600k videos of minors and consensual acts. https://www.engadget.com/pornhub-first-transparency-report-1...
Either you're commenting without being informed, or you're intentionally lying. Either way, you are harming people.
Either you're commenting without being informed, or you're intentionally lying. Either way, you are harming people.
I need to amend my comment here. OF's model is legitimate and ethical (let people post media of themselves, rather than being pimped out by a porn production company).
Unfortunately, the company seems to be pretty morally bankrupt: https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22633411/onlyfans-banned-...
Unfortunately, the company seems to be pretty morally bankrupt: https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22633411/onlyfans-banned-...
> I totally agree that OnlyFans is a legitimate and ethical site
"IRL", abusive relationships can be hidden in plain site from people who think they know the couple well. How do you stand any chance of knowing there isn't an abusive pimp behind the camera of an onlyfans account? Ultimately you only have intuition and guesswork to go off of, but both are fallible. Even if the platform itself is trusted and does a good job of verifying identities, that doesn't preclude abuse.
"IRL", abusive relationships can be hidden in plain site from people who think they know the couple well. How do you stand any chance of knowing there isn't an abusive pimp behind the camera of an onlyfans account? Ultimately you only have intuition and guesswork to go off of, but both are fallible. Even if the platform itself is trusted and does a good job of verifying identities, that doesn't preclude abuse.
This is no different to buying any kind of service or good. How do you know that cheap editing job on fiverr is not made by an enslaved worker?
> How do you know that cheap editing job on fiverr is not made by an enslaved worker?
That's my point, you don't and can't. You should be cognizant of the possibility of abuse, not write off the possibility. Don't pretend to know when you couldn't possibly know. People who claim that abuse doesn't exist on Onlyfans are almost certainly wrong. How much abuse content exists on OF is unknown; unknown to everybody in this conversation, and unknown even to OF. Whether OF is ethical depends on how much abusive content is on OF, which none of us know, and how much abuse somebody thinks should be tolerated, which is subjective.
Anybody who claims that Onlyfans is ethical is making a claim about the rate of abuse which they can't back up.
That's my point, you don't and can't. You should be cognizant of the possibility of abuse, not write off the possibility. Don't pretend to know when you couldn't possibly know. People who claim that abuse doesn't exist on Onlyfans are almost certainly wrong. How much abuse content exists on OF is unknown; unknown to everybody in this conversation, and unknown even to OF. Whether OF is ethical depends on how much abusive content is on OF, which none of us know, and how much abuse somebody thinks should be tolerated, which is subjective.
Anybody who claims that Onlyfans is ethical is making a claim about the rate of abuse which they can't back up.
That's a high standard for being considered "ethical". I'd argue that as long as the platform incentivizes voluntary work more than forced work, it goes in the right direction and is thus "ethical", or at least not "unethical".
What the platform incentivizes is not all there is to consider. Actual outcome must also be considered. Nike can go through all the motions of incentivizing the use of ethical labor in their factories, but if it turns out that despite their efforts, a significant portion of their sneakers are made by child slave labor, then I'm not going to go around claiming Nike is an ethical business. Maybe I'll buy a pair of Nike shoes anyway, because I don't see a better option, but I still won't claim that Nike is ethical. I'll leave extolling the virtue of Nike to the Nike PR department. Anyway, intentions do count for something I think, but outcome is more important.
Note that I am not claiming Onlyfans is unethical. I don't know if Onlyfans is ethical or not. I don't know what the rate of abuse content on Onlyfans is. That's information I simply don't have. Furthermore, I'm not even sure what rate of abuse content society should tolerate from a company. Probably if these are only isolated incidents that are swiftly recognized and rectified, it shouldn't damn the whole platform. Also, I think it probably matters whether that rate is trending up or down, but I don't have any information about either possible trend. I lack the information I need to support the claim that Onlyfans is ethical, and I think the rest of you do as well.
Note that I am not claiming Onlyfans is unethical. I don't know if Onlyfans is ethical or not. I don't know what the rate of abuse content on Onlyfans is. That's information I simply don't have. Furthermore, I'm not even sure what rate of abuse content society should tolerate from a company. Probably if these are only isolated incidents that are swiftly recognized and rectified, it shouldn't damn the whole platform. Also, I think it probably matters whether that rate is trending up or down, but I don't have any information about either possible trend. I lack the information I need to support the claim that Onlyfans is ethical, and I think the rest of you do as well.
Why are you holding them to a higher standard than any other business? They're ethical in the sense that they follow the same ordinary business ethics standard that we apply to everyone else; none of us know and none of us can possibly know how much abuse is going on in, say, Apple's supply chain, but few would say that means they're an unethical company.
I don't understand the argument you are trying to make.
Are you arguing that all sex work should be illegal because it is possible that there is an unhealthy relationship involved?
Would you also extend that to the modeling industry as well?
What about professional cheerleading?
Hooters waitresses?
If there is a couple who decides for the guy to be a stay at home dad, and the wife pays the bills via sex work, is he a pimp?
What if you reverse the genders in the above?
I know couples in both situations. I wouldn't characterize their relationships as abusive, but you might?
Are you arguing that all sex work should be illegal because it is possible that there is an unhealthy relationship involved?
Would you also extend that to the modeling industry as well?
What about professional cheerleading?
Hooters waitresses?
If there is a couple who decides for the guy to be a stay at home dad, and the wife pays the bills via sex work, is he a pimp?
What if you reverse the genders in the above?
I know couples in both situations. I wouldn't characterize their relationships as abusive, but you might?
Porn sites still exist and they accept credit card payments all the time. The major credit networks do not censor them.
Then, it's simply a question of the fee structure.
Then, it's simply a question of the fee structure.
Yes and no. Credit card companies are fine with the professionally produced stuff, because everyone signs model releases and shows ID. It seems like they are fine with softcore amateur stuff like showing vulva and nipples.
What they don't like is hard-core amateur stuff. Its hard to verify the models there. You see titles like "I brought my tinder date home and rode him/her hard" in a video title and you start to wonder if this person consented to being in a paid film, or if they are of legal age. My guess is onlyfans will ban anything involving two or more people. It will become instagram with tits and parasocial relationships.
What they don't like is hard-core amateur stuff. Its hard to verify the models there. You see titles like "I brought my tinder date home and rode him/her hard" in a video title and you start to wonder if this person consented to being in a paid film, or if they are of legal age. My guess is onlyfans will ban anything involving two or more people. It will become instagram with tits and parasocial relationships.
> It will become instagram with tits and parasocial relationships.
Instagram is already Instagram with tits and parasocial relationships.
Instagram is already Instagram with tits and parasocial relationships.
> If PH is having trouble processing any form of credit card, a smaller company will have no chance at all.
According to the article, they value themselves over 1 billion. That's not a small company in my books.
According to the article, they value themselves over 1 billion. That's not a small company in my books.
Sounds like some (large & credible) international company with less puritanical execs than those in the USA need to start a new credit card company or payment service
But also a business opportunity for someone, with high margins.
> It'll be left to whoever can operate beyond those constraints
Maybe by accelerating adoption and normalization of cryptocurrency.
Maybe by accelerating adoption and normalization of cryptocurrency.
that actually opens up a market for a new payment processor that is capable of dealing with these kind of payments. i honestly wonder if onlyfans explored and exhausted that route thoroughly
Looks like we found the killer app for Bitcoin.
Bitcoin for nefarious purposes. Who would have thought?
the free speech issue has been settled: it is no longer a core value in western societies
it's all who/whom now
i don't like it, but that's the reality
it's all who/whom now
i don't like it, but that's the reality
Do you think prostitution should be legal?
Absolutely.
People are going to do what they want to do. When you ban something that's the end of your regulation on it. So it goes underground and becomes less safe for everybody that's involved with it.
When you legalize it you can be more nuanced with the regulation, ultimately making it safer and having better outcomes for a huge majority of the people involved. You won't get 100% but it's certainly better than the 0% you're getting with a ban.
Of course the more you over-regulate and create effective bans the lower that % of people following your regulations is going to be and you're back to square one. Take a look at the history of abortions through being banned, coming into legality, and then back into over-regulation/effective ban in some places. Rate of abortions doesn't go down meaningfully when they're explicitly or implicitly illegal but rate of complications from abortions goes way up.
An anecdote for you: someone I know was instrumental in getting the "condoms in porn" law architected in LA county. The goal was to normalize condom use in the face of multiple STD epidemics including HIV. On the surface this is great. But porn with condoms is insanely less popular than porn without condoms - effectively making this new law a ban on producing porn in LA county. So what happened? Productions either went half an hour down the road to the next county or they just stopped actually filing permits and went unregulated meaning no more enforcement of the regimen of testing etc that porn actors were previously required to adhere to, leading to less safe outcomes for the folks involved and no meaningful increase in the amount of porn featuring condom use.
People are going to do what they want to do. When you ban something that's the end of your regulation on it. So it goes underground and becomes less safe for everybody that's involved with it.
When you legalize it you can be more nuanced with the regulation, ultimately making it safer and having better outcomes for a huge majority of the people involved. You won't get 100% but it's certainly better than the 0% you're getting with a ban.
Of course the more you over-regulate and create effective bans the lower that % of people following your regulations is going to be and you're back to square one. Take a look at the history of abortions through being banned, coming into legality, and then back into over-regulation/effective ban in some places. Rate of abortions doesn't go down meaningfully when they're explicitly or implicitly illegal but rate of complications from abortions goes way up.
An anecdote for you: someone I know was instrumental in getting the "condoms in porn" law architected in LA county. The goal was to normalize condom use in the face of multiple STD epidemics including HIV. On the surface this is great. But porn with condoms is insanely less popular than porn without condoms - effectively making this new law a ban on producing porn in LA county. So what happened? Productions either went half an hour down the road to the next county or they just stopped actually filing permits and went unregulated meaning no more enforcement of the regimen of testing etc that porn actors were previously required to adhere to, leading to less safe outcomes for the folks involved and no meaningful increase in the amount of porn featuring condom use.
Sex work should be legal. I do not want to use the word “prostitution” as it carries unnecessary stigma. The main consideration is the safety of sex workers. Exploitation does exist but victims are hesitant to go law enforcement precisely because sex work is illegal. On the flip side people organizing sex work enterprises (aka “pimps” and “madams”) are already breaking the law so for them application of violence is not out of the framework.
Prostitution is a subset of sex work
I assume you're from Russia, Africa, China, or the USA, where prostitution is not legal?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_law#/media/File:P...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_law#/media/File:P...
I think this is a tough one, and I'm not sure where I stand on this.
On the one hand I don't think the government should be able to tell you what you can and can't do with your body. If you want to sell your body, you should be able to.
But on the other hand, if you legalise it then you open the door to people being exploited, and I'm aware that people are exploited now in prostitution, obviously, but I feel if it's legal it might be harder to punish those that do.
So maybe on balance it's better for it to be illegal if it protects at least some people.
On the one hand I don't think the government should be able to tell you what you can and can't do with your body. If you want to sell your body, you should be able to.
But on the other hand, if you legalise it then you open the door to people being exploited, and I'm aware that people are exploited now in prostitution, obviously, but I feel if it's legal it might be harder to punish those that do.
So maybe on balance it's better for it to be illegal if it protects at least some people.
> I feel if it's legal it might be harder to punish those that do.
Or it could be easier because it becomes regulated and controlled?
Or it could be easier because it becomes regulated and controlled?
How do you think keeping it illegal keeps sex workers more safe?
Yes.
Eventually this will just drive BTC adoption. Perhaps OF had a reason not to go with this option, but other parties will step up.
While that might help them accept payments, they'll likely then have troubling converting that back to USD and doing normal business banking.
While crypto could fix those issues as well, it's just layers and layers of segments that need wide adoption (B2B transactions, payroll, benefits, etc.)
While crypto could fix those issues as well, it's just layers and layers of segments that need wide adoption (B2B transactions, payroll, benefits, etc.)
Well, sure, it would have been easier not to get blackballed. We don't live in a just world.
Gonna be hard to get people to spend a speculative asset, too many people had a couple bitcoins years ago (and everyone had the chance) kicking themselves, I think, for it to be seen as money.
Sure Jess. Any day now...
> Clone the full experience on a dedicated site, OnlyFantasy.com, duplicate the whole userbase, and give a simple warning that I can find my favorite stars on another site. In time, the user bases will diverge naturally depending on interests.
This is exactly what Gfycat did. They took the same backend infrastructure, made it into a porn site (Redgifs), and moved all the porn gifs on Gfycat over to the new site.
This is exactly what Gfycat did. They took the same backend infrastructure, made it into a porn site (Redgifs), and moved all the porn gifs on Gfycat over to the new site.
Stripe is their payment processor and they're _full aware_ of what Onlyfans' content mostly is.
MasterCard calls the shot and they were drive into this by Exodus Cry campaign https://mobile.twitter.com/GustavoTurnerX/status/14284408173...
There was a thread on this a year ago [1]. The leading theories seem to be that they use Stripe for SFW content and others (ex. CCBill) for NSFW content.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24291790
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24291790
Stripe should solve for nsfw paid content. That industry is ripe for disruption.
The problem is that the industry is ripe with fraud, even from what were legitimate customers. I listed some examples elsewhere, but I'll repeat:
* Money laundering by people making anonymous accounts with stolen credit cards and then selling them to people using crypto (so that they're not associated with the account).
* Customer's spouses/SO finding out about it and the customer claiming fraud to chargeback and cover it up.
* (More OF specific) Customers making a large payment for custom content and then filing a chargeback after they get it. This is more or less a problem with all digital goods, but probably more of a problem with custom content.
Most banks/payment processors don't want to touch this industry since it poisons their image to others in the network. For example, if Stripe started serving the industry and fraud went up, that ruins Stripe's image to all the banks they interconnect with. It's just segment that isn't worth serving at the expense of all your other markets.
Even if someone made a bespoke payment processor for the industry, banks would just stop working with them.
In reality, the fraud problem really needs to be dealt with first. If your "customers" are going to be bad actors then there's really nothing you can do on the payment side to solve that.
* Money laundering by people making anonymous accounts with stolen credit cards and then selling them to people using crypto (so that they're not associated with the account).
* Customer's spouses/SO finding out about it and the customer claiming fraud to chargeback and cover it up.
* (More OF specific) Customers making a large payment for custom content and then filing a chargeback after they get it. This is more or less a problem with all digital goods, but probably more of a problem with custom content.
Most banks/payment processors don't want to touch this industry since it poisons their image to others in the network. For example, if Stripe started serving the industry and fraud went up, that ruins Stripe's image to all the banks they interconnect with. It's just segment that isn't worth serving at the expense of all your other markets.
Even if someone made a bespoke payment processor for the industry, banks would just stop working with them.
In reality, the fraud problem really needs to be dealt with first. If your "customers" are going to be bad actors then there's really nothing you can do on the payment side to solve that.
You don’t even need an anonymous account as much as you just need an account: they have plausible deniability.
Chaturbate had this issue some years ago where entrepreneurial individuals would just go direct to the model for a cut.
Chaturbate had this issue some years ago where entrepreneurial individuals would just go direct to the model for a cut.
[deleted]
Stripe has more than enough runway in non-nsfw markets to disrupt. NSFW is a hard (read -> $$$) problem to solve. This would be a financially stupid (read -> poor ROI) endeavor to pursue for them.
Once you reach a certain size and payment processors are barking at your content, the answer becomes: “start your own payment processor” an amusing side note is today I learned onlyfans didn’t just host people’s porn videos.
You will discover new Eastern European "friends" who will "discourage" you from becoming an adult-services payment processor. That entire market is cornered, and they don't like to share.
I see. Whenever you have one of those seemingly great business ideas where you think. “Why has no one ever thought of this?” I wonder how often “new friends” are the reason that no one else has done it.
Probably impossible as someone mentioned it might be due to FOSTA-SESTA which is intended to curb online sex work, which is arguably what onlyfans currently enabled right now. They probably determined it's too risky to continue.
Here are the details how MasterCard got into the censorship business https://mobile.twitter.com/GustavoTurnerX/status/14284408173...
OTOH OnlyFans could have complied, and the requirements are not impossible, though harsh.
OTOH OnlyFans could have complied, and the requirements are not impossible, though harsh.
It's especially odd given that their parent company already owns an explicit porn site called MyFreeCams.
What other brand do they have?
Also, there seriously needs to be a reckoning with the payment processor issue, somehow.
Also, there seriously needs to be a reckoning with the payment processor issue, somehow.
Exactly, you can't clean up the OF brand because its brand as it is commonly known is 18 to 30yr olds selling nudes. And this seems to be its big customer demographic. There is no significant "other brand" to split off. If it wants to start a Patreon competitor with the same backend fine, but that's a new brand. It's literally a meme among younger people: "oh yeah that OF charge it's a cooking class" or "yoga sessions" or some shit. This is the Colgate Dinner problem: you can't apply a toothpaste brand to frozen food, you can't apply an amateur porn brand to patreon stuff. If i'm a chick trying to sell some non-porn subscription content I cannot use that brand because everyone will think it is porn and write me off as another thot.
Companies can be very self-deluded about what they are.
In these cases, it's usually not the payment processors' call.
Visa & Mastercard are happy to ban an entire company from their platform (see PornHub).
Visa & Mastercard are happy to ban an entire company from their platform (see PornHub).
It seemed like they were gonna do that. They launched OFTV which was a non-nude platform, which could get on Apple/Google app stores. That was very recently too. Then suddenly this news comes out. Very strange...
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 train now.
†Yes, I have a slightly strange life, I know.
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 train now.
†Yes, I have a slightly strange life, I know.
A number of my friends and loved ones will be affected by this, and many more have been thrown under the payment processing bus before.
And forgive me if this seems ranty, but it isn’t just payment processors, it seems to permeate so much that comes out of the USA. See the various App Store rules too.
And this isn’t about fraud rates. Because why are the fraud rates high? It’s because the sex whole industry is pushed to the fringes, and loaded with shame. “Oh that payment wasn’t me, my card must have been stolen”.
I feel pretty angry how much this puritanical nature in a foreign country affects the people I care about around me.
If you can let China censor your platforms, you can let Europeans have porn.
Ok, rant over. Please don’t downvote too heavily.
And forgive me if this seems ranty, but it isn’t just payment processors, it seems to permeate so much that comes out of the USA. See the various App Store rules too.
And this isn’t about fraud rates. Because why are the fraud rates high? It’s because the sex whole industry is pushed to the fringes, and loaded with shame. “Oh that payment wasn’t me, my card must have been stolen”.
I feel pretty angry how much this puritanical nature in a foreign country affects the people I care about around me.
If you can let China censor your platforms, you can let Europeans have porn.
Ok, rant over. Please don’t downvote too heavily.
[deleted]
China allows online porn and their citizens have no trouble with Chinese payment processors accepting purchases for porn.
I would suggest some research on China and porn-prohibition.
China most definitely does not allow online porn. It's tolerated as an underground enterprise but explicitly illegal.
Who is "you"? What point is this rant supposed to be making?
They're private companies, they have the freedom to do what they like, and "you" are free to start your own payment processor.
They're private companies, they have the freedom to do what they like, and "you" are free to start your own payment processor.
You is American culture.
If you’re American, it’s YOUR country, the one who pretended to export democracy, and instead is only able to export its own puritanical and backward values on what they pretend to be a free global market.
So yes, YOU.
I wasn't asking you, but this strange rant is even less coherent than the other one.
Dismissing critical thinking as a rant is also very American.
No but seriously, (excuse my American ignorance), are there not European banks and payment processors? No European alternative to OnlyFans?
I worked at a webcam pornography company (as a software engineer) a few years ago and honestly, I get it from the processors perspective. I wasn't privy to all the conversations, but I know at the time, some higher ups were toying around with the idea of basically building an entire in house payment processor to handle transactions.
I think a lot of people think the processors are doing this out of some moral high ground to try and kill off the pornography business, but that's not what's happening. It's all about risk and opportunity cost. I forget the exact numbers, but pornography and gambling are near the top of the list when you look at industries with the highest number of fraudulent transactions. When someone reports a transaction as fraudulent, the money to refund the customer comes out someone behind the scenes pocket and often that money gets tied up in limbo while everyone points fingers at everyone else. Dealing with fraudulent transactions is a massive headache that wastes a ton of time.
Most major processors just don't want to deal with the hassle and the ones who do charge extremely high fees to offset the extra risk. OF has probably been using a processor that doesn't allow for pornography this whole time, but the processor has been letting it slide. My guess would be the risk has finally grown too large and the processor is cracking down. Like I said, there are other processors out there who are happy to work with the porn industry for a much higher fee, but it seems like OF has decided for one reason or another that that isn't as lucrative as just banning explicit content all together.
I think a lot of people think the processors are doing this out of some moral high ground to try and kill off the pornography business, but that's not what's happening. It's all about risk and opportunity cost. I forget the exact numbers, but pornography and gambling are near the top of the list when you look at industries with the highest number of fraudulent transactions. When someone reports a transaction as fraudulent, the money to refund the customer comes out someone behind the scenes pocket and often that money gets tied up in limbo while everyone points fingers at everyone else. Dealing with fraudulent transactions is a massive headache that wastes a ton of time.
Most major processors just don't want to deal with the hassle and the ones who do charge extremely high fees to offset the extra risk. OF has probably been using a processor that doesn't allow for pornography this whole time, but the processor has been letting it slide. My guess would be the risk has finally grown too large and the processor is cracking down. Like I said, there are other processors out there who are happy to work with the porn industry for a much higher fee, but it seems like OF has decided for one reason or another that that isn't as lucrative as just banning explicit content all together.
The dispute rate is certainly true for companies under the general umbrella of “subscription services”, usually meaning porn / webcam sites, and there are trigger points where the payment processor will switch off a facility that exceeds a certain dispute volume.
OF has been increasingly making use of step-up authentication to avoid disputes, which is the way the non-US payments industry is heading. My guess would be that if disputes are in fact the reason, it’ll be because the step-up authentication isn’t available or working for some significant slice of the market.
That said, I don’t think that’s the reason. Switching off porn altogether means the vast majority(citation needed) of OF’s content will be gone, which means this has to be a life-or-death move. MC has been placing legality/consent/age restrictions on adult content, including real-time monitoring of content / chat [0]. My guess is that this is onerous enough that it breaks OF’s business model.
[0] https://www.webshield.com/post/mastercard-introduces-revised...
OF has been increasingly making use of step-up authentication to avoid disputes, which is the way the non-US payments industry is heading. My guess would be that if disputes are in fact the reason, it’ll be because the step-up authentication isn’t available or working for some significant slice of the market.
That said, I don’t think that’s the reason. Switching off porn altogether means the vast majority(citation needed) of OF’s content will be gone, which means this has to be a life-or-death move. MC has been placing legality/consent/age restrictions on adult content, including real-time monitoring of content / chat [0]. My guess is that this is onerous enough that it breaks OF’s business model.
[0] https://www.webshield.com/post/mastercard-introduces-revised...
Oh, that article you linked is interesting, especially since it says it takes effect Oct 15 and OF's changes take place Oct 1st.
I think at the company I worked at most of what is in there around record keeping wouldn't have been a problem because there were laws that required the company to do that already.
The "pre-screening requirement" could be problematic though.
> All uploaded content must be reviewed prior to publication to ensure that it is not illegal and does not otherwise violate Mastercard’s standards
That one seems crazy. I have no idea how much content they get uploaded daily, but I would guess it's a massive amount. If they needed a human to view 100% of the uploaded content before it's allowed to be published... I just don't see how they could do that profitably.
I think at the company I worked at most of what is in there around record keeping wouldn't have been a problem because there were laws that required the company to do that already.
The "pre-screening requirement" could be problematic though.
> All uploaded content must be reviewed prior to publication to ensure that it is not illegal and does not otherwise violate Mastercard’s standards
That one seems crazy. I have no idea how much content they get uploaded daily, but I would guess it's a massive amount. If they needed a human to view 100% of the uploaded content before it's allowed to be published... I just don't see how they could do that profitably.
I don’t think review per se would be such a problem: just charge a per-upload review fee. That might weed out some of the creators who are not yet making any money and can’t/won’t invest in the effort, but is that really a bad thing for the platform?
I think the hard part is the hand-wavy stuff you’re supposed to be looking for. How are you supposed to know whether some unusual sexual act violates their standards? Or whether gay porn is legal in all applicable jurisdictions for instance?
I think the hard part is the hand-wavy stuff you’re supposed to be looking for. How are you supposed to know whether some unusual sexual act violates their standards? Or whether gay porn is legal in all applicable jurisdictions for instance?
Why? Why can't they use stripe identity verification https://stripe.com/identity to verify age/consent of user's who upload adult content?
The person uploading may or may not be in the video, or the other participants could be under age. Figuring out the age of people in a video is lot harder.
Also stripe identity really works for US users the most , with a global audience like OnlyFans that could be limiting as well
Also stripe identity really works for US users the most , with a global audience like OnlyFans that could be limiting as well
Hmmm I guess you could use it and have snail mail as a backup...It'd be better than nothing probably?
Yea I'm not sure how you validate everyone in the video has a verified identity and age... Perhaps machine learning could automate some of this. Stripe has selfie validation... so if you could do something like that on the video where faces in the video are compared to the identities provided... If there isn't a match then the video is flagged for review.
Yea I'm not sure how you validate everyone in the video has a verified identity and age... Perhaps machine learning could automate some of this. Stripe has selfie validation... so if you could do something like that on the video where faces in the video are compared to the identities provided... If there isn't a match then the video is flagged for review.
I have seen several times stories on HN about the problems porn sites has with processors, but I never heard that gambling sites had the same issues. It would be interesting to hear more about that.
It's probably as simple as:
1. Addict puts $1000 into gambling site via their credit card
2. Addict loses $1000 in the next few minutes at gambling site
3. Addict realizing they can't afford it files a charge-back
4. Addict repeats cycle anyway
1. Addict puts $1000 into gambling site via their credit card
2. Addict loses $1000 in the next few minutes at gambling site
3. Addict realizing they can't afford it files a charge-back
4. Addict repeats cycle anyway
Big Porn like onlyfans and pornhub are not being targetted by cc companies because of fraud rates, but because of the weird Christian fundamentalist lobby in America.
Pornhub's live cam service was a white label of the company I worked at. I can tell you pretty definitively that you are wrong.
Are you seriously suggesting that pornhubs payment processing was not cut off because of the series of NYT hit pieces organized by Exodus Cry?
From NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/business/visa-mastercard-...
> Mastercard and Visa said they had prohibited the use of their cards on the adult website Pornhub, after the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof reported that the platform included videos of child abuse and rape
BTW it’s silly of you to try to pretend to be some sort of industry expert and then immediately admit that you have never worked with porn payment processing. Everyone knows that the fraud rates for porn are very high, that’s not new.
From NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/business/visa-mastercard-...
> Mastercard and Visa said they had prohibited the use of their cards on the adult website Pornhub, after the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof reported that the platform included videos of child abuse and rape
BTW it’s silly of you to try to pretend to be some sort of industry expert and then immediately admit that you have never worked with porn payment processing. Everyone knows that the fraud rates for porn are very high, that’s not new.
I don't see how working at a porn company that was white labeled by another porn company gives you detailed insight into the decision making at major credit card companies.
You're right, maybe "definitively" was over the top. I got a little excited because one of the companies he mentioned was at least partially something I had worked on.
What I am basing my statement off of is second hand knowledge from multiple people at one of the companies mentioned saying that the reason payment processors don't work with porn companies is because of fraud rates.
That's not definitive, but considering the person I was responding to gave us 0 reason to believe his statement is anything other than his opinion and his comment history shows a pattern asserting his opinion as fact. I'm going to assume he's talking out his ass and that I'm slightly more informed on this issue.
What I am basing my statement off of is second hand knowledge from multiple people at one of the companies mentioned saying that the reason payment processors don't work with porn companies is because of fraud rates.
That's not definitive, but considering the person I was responding to gave us 0 reason to believe his statement is anything other than his opinion and his comment history shows a pattern asserting his opinion as fact. I'm going to assume he's talking out his ass and that I'm slightly more informed on this issue.
You could also have just googled “pornhub christian lobby” instead of writing all this nonsense.
This is all well documented in mainstream media, I certainly shouldn’t need to provide any evidence to a purported industry insider.
This is all well documented in mainstream media, I certainly shouldn’t need to provide any evidence to a purported industry insider.
> multiple people at one of the companies mentioned saying that the reason payment processors don't work with porn companies is because of fraud rates.
This is a widely given explanation so I would entirely expect you to have heard it repeatedly in that context.
It is far less clear to what degree this explanation is accurate. Yes fraud rates are higher but they could easily be covered by charging higher processing fees (something that is often done for other risks.) There is pretty good evidence that other factors than fraud risk are at least partially responsible.
If you have an issue with people aaserting opinions as fact, maybe you should be more careful as you what you state as fact from a position of claimed authority.
This is a widely given explanation so I would entirely expect you to have heard it repeatedly in that context.
It is far less clear to what degree this explanation is accurate. Yes fraud rates are higher but they could easily be covered by charging higher processing fees (something that is often done for other risks.) There is pretty good evidence that other factors than fraud risk are at least partially responsible.
If you have an issue with people aaserting opinions as fact, maybe you should be more careful as you what you state as fact from a position of claimed authority.
> Yes fraud rates are higher but they could easily be covered by charging higher processing fees (something that is often done for other risks.)
This is exactly what happens, there are several payment processors (probiller, ccbill, epoch …) focusing on high risk transactions like porn.
This is exactly what happens, there are several payment processors (probiller, ccbill, epoch …) focusing on high risk transactions like porn.
What year do you think this is?
If crypto was actually a viable alternative they wouldn't be doing this.
I'm not against the promises of crypto - but the tech so far has failed to deliver anything but a platform to streamline illegal activity, asset speculation bubbles and a whole bunch of wasted energy/hardware along with reliving the problems people had historically with bank fraud in free banking and the likes (banks printing their own notes without cover till you get a bank run - this is why central banks were invented ...)
I'm not against the promises of crypto - but the tech so far has failed to deliver anything but a platform to streamline illegal activity, asset speculation bubbles and a whole bunch of wasted energy/hardware along with reliving the problems people had historically with bank fraud in free banking and the likes (banks printing their own notes without cover till you get a bank run - this is why central banks were invented ...)
The tech is there but mainstream adoption and understanding is still coming along. It's incredibly easy and cheap to send USDC or DAI to OnlyFans if they accept tokens on a sidechain (like Polygon or Fantom).
You don't have to sign up for an account or provide any personal info, just use your wallet to send certain tokens to an address, then you can use that wallet as a sign-in.
OnlyFans can then use Coinbase or an off-ramp to go from crypto to fiat.
It's a more seamless user experience and solves the payment processing issue.
In my opinion it's a matter of educating the masses to a very different method of paying for services and using services (both on the business and consumer side).
You don't have to sign up for an account or provide any personal info, just use your wallet to send certain tokens to an address, then you can use that wallet as a sign-in.
OnlyFans can then use Coinbase or an off-ramp to go from crypto to fiat.
It's a more seamless user experience and solves the payment processing issue.
In my opinion it's a matter of educating the masses to a very different method of paying for services and using services (both on the business and consumer side).
> It's incredibly easy and cheap to send USDC or DAI to OnlyFans if they accept tokens on a sidechain (like Polygon or Fantom).
I'm a pretty techy guy but in this one sentence alone you said 5 things that I have no idea about nor even heard of ("USDC", "DAI", "sidechain", "Polygon", "Fantom").
The chance of the general population catching onto this stuff anytime soon is slim.
I'm a pretty techy guy but in this one sentence alone you said 5 things that I have no idea about nor even heard of ("USDC", "DAI", "sidechain", "Polygon", "Fantom").
The chance of the general population catching onto this stuff anytime soon is slim.
I’m a smart contract and altcoin developer. Yes it’s confusing now but there is a path forward.
USDC and Dai are both US-dollar stable coins. They’re always worth 1 dollar each, they’re among the most trustworthy USD stablecoins, and they are perfect for storefronts. The problem is that Ethereum transaction (tx) fees are now around $15-$25 because the network is so popular. Everyone wants to use the highway but the highway is only so big. Ethereum 2.0 is supposed to increase the size of that highway by some order of magnitude to make each transaction cost cents to send but we won’t know until it happens in few years. But we need a solution now! — and not in a few years!
That’s where other less popular but still good enough networks [side chains] like Polygon, Stellar, Binance Smart Chain, Tron, and a few others come into play.
Side chain is a term for a non-Ethereum or non-Bitcoin blockchain. Think of it like getting off a tollroad and getting onto a less trafficked, cheaper, and possibly faster side road, with the risk of coming across some new undocumented potholes.
USDC (and probably Dai too) for example, can already run on the Binance(bsc20), Ethereum(ERC20), Polygon, Tron, Stellar, and a few other networks. This can be super confusing and shocking for users because if you send your BSC20 USDC to an ERC20 USDC address you usually lose it. It’s a good thing that many of these networks have different address formats and that helps considerably to have software preventing that goof but some networks like BSC20 and ERC20 share the same address format because ERC20 is a copy of BSC20. Very user unfriendly. Alright I know I might be loosing you here but the solution is next.
Now, here’s what I think a solution to this all is: Rename one existing Stablecoin on one of those networks and let’s call it something idealistic like Freecoin. For example, DAI on the Polygon network or something else. To make it simple, it’s only one coin on one cheap network that is anything but the Ethereum network and then boom, you’ve dropped your terminology down to just “Freecoin” and “where is an easy on-ramp to buy it?” It’s important that there is only 1 kind of Freecoin. Buy them on this Shopify website, these exchanges, or this DeFi exchange. Obviously you can allow people to pay with other cryptocurrencies but you can either give a 1%-2% discount for using a certain cryptocurrency or make the UI button for your cryptocurrency larger than the buttons for the other cryptocurrencies. Both are effective nudges.
If you have a product worth buying, people will beat a path to your doorstep.
USDC and Dai are both US-dollar stable coins. They’re always worth 1 dollar each, they’re among the most trustworthy USD stablecoins, and they are perfect for storefronts. The problem is that Ethereum transaction (tx) fees are now around $15-$25 because the network is so popular. Everyone wants to use the highway but the highway is only so big. Ethereum 2.0 is supposed to increase the size of that highway by some order of magnitude to make each transaction cost cents to send but we won’t know until it happens in few years. But we need a solution now! — and not in a few years!
That’s where other less popular but still good enough networks [side chains] like Polygon, Stellar, Binance Smart Chain, Tron, and a few others come into play.
Side chain is a term for a non-Ethereum or non-Bitcoin blockchain. Think of it like getting off a tollroad and getting onto a less trafficked, cheaper, and possibly faster side road, with the risk of coming across some new undocumented potholes.
USDC (and probably Dai too) for example, can already run on the Binance(bsc20), Ethereum(ERC20), Polygon, Tron, Stellar, and a few other networks. This can be super confusing and shocking for users because if you send your BSC20 USDC to an ERC20 USDC address you usually lose it. It’s a good thing that many of these networks have different address formats and that helps considerably to have software preventing that goof but some networks like BSC20 and ERC20 share the same address format because ERC20 is a copy of BSC20. Very user unfriendly. Alright I know I might be loosing you here but the solution is next.
Now, here’s what I think a solution to this all is: Rename one existing Stablecoin on one of those networks and let’s call it something idealistic like Freecoin. For example, DAI on the Polygon network or something else. To make it simple, it’s only one coin on one cheap network that is anything but the Ethereum network and then boom, you’ve dropped your terminology down to just “Freecoin” and “where is an easy on-ramp to buy it?” It’s important that there is only 1 kind of Freecoin. Buy them on this Shopify website, these exchanges, or this DeFi exchange. Obviously you can allow people to pay with other cryptocurrencies but you can either give a 1%-2% discount for using a certain cryptocurrency or make the UI button for your cryptocurrency larger than the buttons for the other cryptocurrencies. Both are effective nudges.
If you have a product worth buying, people will beat a path to your doorstep.
Yea, it's a lot of foreign concepts. Bit of a learning curve to it. Whether or not the incentives are great enough so that the public goes past the learning curve is going to be interesting to see.
Isn't USDC printed out of thin air with no backing? Similar to how private bank money was printed before modern banking regulations.
What are the guardrails to prevent bankrun like the wild west days of banking?
What are the guardrails to prevent bankrun like the wild west days of banking?
USDT is printed out of thin air (which is why I didn't mention it). USDC is a bit better and more transparent. DAI is decentralized and backed by collateral.
There's been a lot of talks of regulating stablecoins to ensure backing, which I don't think is a terrible idea.
There's been a lot of talks of regulating stablecoins to ensure backing, which I don't think is a terrible idea.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.circle.com/blog/greater-tra...
Do some googling before commenting please.
Do some googling before commenting please.
Telling him to google, then providing exactly one link to the company that created USDC isn't really much of a refute. Maybe a link to an independent audit (as far as I can tell there are none).
Much like tether, there is no proof that they have anywhere near the currency they claim and folks that operate in that market are the ones shouting the loudest about the apparent fraud occurring. I've yet to see tether or usdc provide proof otherwise, it always seems to be a "we wouldn't be this big if we didn't have what we say we have" - bernie madoff style. And to get in front of it, an attestation != audit.
Much like tether, there is no proof that they have anywhere near the currency they claim and folks that operate in that market are the ones shouting the loudest about the apparent fraud occurring. I've yet to see tether or usdc provide proof otherwise, it always seems to be a "we wouldn't be this big if we didn't have what we say we have" - bernie madoff style. And to get in front of it, an attestation != audit.
> It's incredibly easy and cheap to send USDC or DAI to OnlyFans if they accept tokens on a sidechain (like Polygon or Fantom).
And then you quickly realize how useless USDC/DAI is when you want to pay your rent, for milk, etc.
> OnlyFans can then use Coinbase or an off-ramp to go from crypto to fiat.
They can't because then KYC kicks in. This is exactly the problem with crypto at scale...you can't convert large scale amounts of crypto to fiat without someone noticing. Silkroad "worked" because there was no central authority taking money, just lots of a smaller drug dealers. Pablo Escobar wouldn't have been able to run his whole operation on crypto without getting seen.
And then you quickly realize how useless USDC/DAI is when you want to pay your rent, for milk, etc.
> OnlyFans can then use Coinbase or an off-ramp to go from crypto to fiat.
They can't because then KYC kicks in. This is exactly the problem with crypto at scale...you can't convert large scale amounts of crypto to fiat without someone noticing. Silkroad "worked" because there was no central authority taking money, just lots of a smaller drug dealers. Pablo Escobar wouldn't have been able to run his whole operation on crypto without getting seen.
>> OnlyFans can then use Coinbase or an off-ramp to go from crypto to fiat.
> They can't because then KYC kicks in. This is exactly the problem with crypto at scale.
Isn't KYC only a problem for people trying to hide their income? Onlyfans (and other legit businesses) would not have this problem as they would not be trying to hide their earnings.
> They can't because then KYC kicks in. This is exactly the problem with crypto at scale.
Isn't KYC only a problem for people trying to hide their income? Onlyfans (and other legit businesses) would not have this problem as they would not be trying to hide their earnings.
KYC/AML isn't just for hiding income, it's about understanding the threshold for which someone wants to do business with an individual or company. For the same reason CC companies don't want to take on potentially illegal activity, no crypto exchange is going to take on the risk of business conducting $B's of dollars worth of crypto as its means to doing business.
This is essentially how Coinbase is allowed to operate - it doesn't have whales on its platform, just millions of KYC'd minnows who are individually low risk.
This is essentially how Coinbase is allowed to operate - it doesn't have whales on its platform, just millions of KYC'd minnows who are individually low risk.
It is more chargeback and fradulent transactions processors are concerned with it. Those cost immediate money to them . Blockchain and altcoins solve that (for payment processing consumer, protection is lesser of course)
Illegal activities are only a problem if law enforcement makes it their problem, I don't think there is a case where law enforcement went after the payment provider for facilitating transactions for illegal activities, it is website/marketplace responsibility usually
Illegal activities are only a problem if law enforcement makes it their problem, I don't think there is a case where law enforcement went after the payment provider for facilitating transactions for illegal activities, it is website/marketplace responsibility usually
> Blockchain and altcoins solve that (for payment processing consumer, protection is lesser of course)
> Illegal activities are only a problem if law enforcement makes it their problem
And now this is where AML kicks in. Now you're dealing with banks and not credit card processors as the source of the issue. No US bank is going to work with a company who is converting money from crypto to fiat at the level of billions of dollars.
> Illegal activities are only a problem if law enforcement makes it their problem
And now this is where AML kicks in. Now you're dealing with banks and not credit card processors as the source of the issue. No US bank is going to work with a company who is converting money from crypto to fiat at the level of billions of dollars.
Ren of billions if not lot more has already moved from USD into crypto coins. Banks have had very little say in it, and also no control how money is being used once USD is converted to crypto.
Exchanges are doing pretty well to convert USD to say BitCount, despite Bitcoin's unsavory reputation for illicit/ illegal transaction like ransomware payments that actually happen on the coin. Even single transactions in the millions barely register these days.
I am not sure porn as an industry earns in billions and even if it did the market is today large enough that it won't be sticking out all that much.
Exchanges are doing pretty well to convert USD to say BitCount, despite Bitcoin's unsavory reputation for illicit/ illegal transaction like ransomware payments that actually happen on the coin. Even single transactions in the millions barely register these days.
I am not sure porn as an industry earns in billions and even if it did the market is today large enough that it won't be sticking out all that much.
So, here is the core problem: if you want to do this on mobile... how? You can't do the actual payment parts securely using just a web browser--if you think about it that kind of undermines the whole concept for a lot of people: you would need to host that website somewhere--and then crypto wallets that support dapps and payment processing tend to get banned by Apple, because they provide a way to bypass their cut for services using an app (even if that app is just a browser) :/.
Metamask and WalletConnect have solved this problem. You can use a browser wallet, or a mobile wallet that connects to your browser.
Honest question, I tried to ask it below: the optics issues of being associated with illegal activity, being a waste of energy and hardware during a chip shortage, as well as the actual reality that most people in crypto are speculators at this point, these seem like issues that crypto advocates can actually recognize and address so crypto can achieve wider adoption. It unfortunately feels like crypto enthusiasts just dismiss these concerns and think they don't matter, which just maintains the status quo with respect to its adoption.
The properties of certain cryptocurrencies that make them good for illegal transactions also make them good for pornography and other "not illegal but touchy" areas.
Not really - these are high volume low value transactions and need to be low friction. Money laundering and similar illegal transactions are fine with the opposite.
The cryptocurrencies I consider viable for this kind of thing (mostly Monero) are actually better for low-value transactions than conventional card payments, since they have a low, fixed transaction cost (well under 0.1USD, try that with VISA/MasterCard). I'm not sure about scaling volume, but the current situation looks promising.
Friction is a problem, but I don't see why sending Monero has to be any harder than with conventional payment methods. The hard part is overcoming the network effect of payment cards.
Friction is a problem, but I don't see why sending Monero has to be any harder than with conventional payment methods. The hard part is overcoming the network effect of payment cards.
The "only people doing illegal stuff use it" point doesn't really hold up when you consider how much energy is going into keeping legal uses less convenient than centralized finance. It's like saying only robbers wear masks, and then we have a pandemic and suddenly everyone does. With the right economic incentives, defi is a tool waiting for the right moment to shine. This could be such a moment.
> If crypto was actually a viable alternative they wouldn't be doing this.
Adoption is a thing and takes time. Crypto itself is also a technology still in its infancy with at least a decade+ of engineering remaining to begin to resemble something that everyday people can use, but it's already quite promising.
Adoption is a thing and takes time. Crypto itself is also a technology still in its infancy with at least a decade+ of engineering remaining to begin to resemble something that everyday people can use, but it's already quite promising.
There are many cryptos that would be perfectly viable for payments here. XLM, USDC, Polygon for example. I think the investors told them that it’s too niche and they’d rather have credit card payments for whatever remains after the policy change.
All of these are literally senseless for buying porn. Are you seriously telling me you want your family and friends to know when you buy something from OF?
Monero is really the only thing that makes sense here.
Monero is really the only thing that makes sense here.
"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.
I wonder how we can be more open minded as a society while still keeping enough skepticism to not accept literal garbage.
Reminds me of all the politicians who were anti-LGBT until one of their kids came out and then they miraculously flip flop.
Exactly.
Pick any "we should oppress this thing that other people want/like/are" and there are people who miraculously realize that actually, there's a reason people want/like/are that thing once it happens to them.
I think it starts from some combination of factors like fear of the unknown, superiority complexes, downright stupidity, etc., which are only un-blinded when it smacks you in the face.
Pick any "we should oppress this thing that other people want/like/are" and there are people who miraculously realize that actually, there's a reason people want/like/are that thing once it happens to them.
I think it starts from some combination of factors like fear of the unknown, superiority complexes, downright stupidity, etc., which are only un-blinded when it smacks you in the face.
It works I’m reverse as well. The owner of a socialist magazine just recently fired most of his staff for trying to unionize. He wrote a bunch of articles purporting to support all these ideals but the moment those ideals threatened his power he shut it down.
Whoa I'd be very interested to read more about this, if possible.
Looks like Current Affairs maybe?
https://twitter.com/lyta_gold/status/1428011761635143681
https://twitter.com/lyta_gold/status/1428011761635143681
> It works in reverse as well
What does this mean? Its an example of a business in addition to politicians, how is that the reverse?
What does this mean? Its an example of a business in addition to politicians, how is that the reverse?
His all women/non-binary staff IIRC
Yeah, I absolutely admit to my hypocrisy and/or short-sighted attitude here.
The fact that OnlyFans isn't even trying to move to crypto to keep their business alive is a stunning indictment of the state of crypto as a viable payment method.
Couldn't the explanation be as simple as them lacking imagination? They're not a Silicon Valley funded startup. My impression is they lucked into the golden goose, and this move makes me think they're downright clueless about their options when things get adversarial.
I guess that's possible, but it's hard for me to imagine that with billions of dollars at stake they didn't even consider it. I think they made the calculation that forcing their customers and creators to use crypto would lose them even more business than banning their core product.
I just can't fathom such a risk-averse decision. I mean, their business is dead. Even if you're not normally the type of leader to bet the farm on a wild shot, certainly it's the rational choice when the other option is a guaranteed 90% loss in expected valuation.
What are those last 10% worth to you? Unless it's still the difference between personal financial independence and wage slavery for the majority owner, I can't see how that's the rational choice. That's why I'm concluding lack of imagination and borderline incompetency.
What are those last 10% worth to you? Unless it's still the difference between personal financial independence and wage slavery for the majority owner, I can't see how that's the rational choice. That's why I'm concluding lack of imagination and borderline incompetency.
Why do we somehow assume that OnlyFans - a company that basically stumbled into success with zero innovation or business prowess - is even capable of adopting crypto in such way?
Of all companies that could adopt mass crypto this one would be somewhere at the bottom of the list imho.
Of all companies that could adopt mass crypto this one would be somewhere at the bottom of the list imho.
It's really just an indictment of OnlyFans lacking any imagination, or, well, balls. They are going to crash and burn anyways - they could have at least tried something like this. Instead they will just pathetically fizzle out, desperately clutching to the few pennies they will have left after this, unwilling to take a risk that might reap great reward and actual change.
Who says they won't? PH did when this happened to them. Now they accepting like 60 diffferent cryptocurrencies.
There simply aren't enough consumers with crypto to spend yet.
The percentage of consumers with crypto is maybe 1%. The percentage with credit cards is maybe 90%. If OnlyFans moves to crypto, they cut their addressable market by 98%.
The percentage of consumers with crypto is maybe 1%. The percentage with credit cards is maybe 90%. If OnlyFans moves to crypto, they cut their addressable market by 98%.
It also puts crypto in an interesting new light: circumventing sovereign governments and regulations was always a fool's errand in my opinion. But circumventing private payment providers that have decided to do extralegal morality-policing... that's a much more realistic and interesting thing to aim for.
> circumventing sovereign governments and regulations was always a fool's errand in my opinion.
For big companies that have to respect laws anyway, yes, but it still brings lots of opportunities for regular people and small organizations that can fly under the government's radar.
For big companies that have to respect laws anyway, yes, but it still brings lots of opportunities for regular people and small organizations that can fly under the government's radar.
To make a minor nitpick, Bitcoin was created in response to the GFC bailouts, which was essentially forced government action as a result of private banking greed, fraud, and / or incompetence.
The circumvention you mention is incidental, not primary. "Something better" was the, admittedly lofty, goal. And if not purely "something better" then at least "an alternative".
The circumvention you mention is incidental, not primary. "Something better" was the, admittedly lofty, goal. And if not purely "something better" then at least "an alternative".
>And to see that get taken away because the payment processors
There was a story about an online dildo seller who couldn't sell specific colour of dildos because American Express didn't like them. I think it was lovehoney
There was a story about an online dildo seller who couldn't sell specific colour of dildos because American Express didn't like them. I think it was lovehoney
It's none of our business if your life is strange, the question is if it's illegal, which it isn't.
I’m sure there’s got to be other full-time UI designers/part-time circuit queens out there. Can’t be that weird.
But yes, these are consenting adults (a fair number of them quite highly educated and absolutely aware of what they are doing) selling solo videos or videos with other consenting adults. It’s legal, it’s a huge business, and it’s dumb to push it further to the fringes.
But yes, these are consenting adults (a fair number of them quite highly educated and absolutely aware of what they are doing) selling solo videos or videos with other consenting adults. It’s legal, it’s a huge business, and it’s dumb to push it further to the fringes.
So i don't necessarily like OnlyFans and I think it's a dangerous game to play for contributors. That said, why are payment processors deciding which businesses get to exist? I understand that the fraud rate is higher than normal, but how high is it? Could it not be handled by a higher than normal transaction fee?
It bothers me that they have the power to shut businesses based on what appears to be their own subjective moral code. If a website is shutdown for any reason it should be due them breaking some law, not the payment processors feelings.
Regulation should passed to stop this from happening. While a lot of people may agree with their actions so far, it shouldn't be their decision to do this.
It bothers me that they have the power to shut businesses based on what appears to be their own subjective moral code. If a website is shutdown for any reason it should be due them breaking some law, not the payment processors feelings.
Regulation should passed to stop this from happening. While a lot of people may agree with their actions so far, it shouldn't be their decision to do this.
You are blaming the wrong party! Your friends shouldn't rely on income from one customer who holds all the cards (did your friends negotiate a contract with OF with the help of a lawyer?). Lesson learned for them. They can now run their own sites and do marketing etc. themselves and learn how to run a business.
Yet more skills they have to have... also, I presume OnlyFans helps with the pipeline. (Much more likely to be comfortable clicking on an onlyfans link than a link to an unknown website)
Yeah but it’s almost a trope of the 4 hour week beach laptop business decimated by the big tech company, be it SEO changes, AdWords changes, being banned from Twitter, relying on a Facebook page, yadda yadda.
They are in business and need to adapt. If they can’t hack it take my route: employment in a demand industry.
They are in business and need to adapt. If they can’t hack it take my route: employment in a demand industry.
>†Yes, I have a slightly strange life, I know.
No you don't. There are many people who are become porn actors as a result of only fans. That is likely why this is happening.
No you don't. There are many people who are become porn actors as a result of only fans. That is likely why this is happening.
Someone else will replicate of
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.
Right. So I just looked into it a bit, and the idea has been around. There's (adult content warning...):
- Sexcoin, launched in 2013 [https://sexcoin.info] [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/sexcoin/]
- Titcoin, TIT [https://titcoin.github.io] [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/titcoin/]
- Tittiecoin, launched in 2014: "TittieCoin Accelerates Your Digital Transformation", now Limitless VIP? [https://tittiecoin.com] [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/limitless-vip/]
- Spankchain, by Spanktoshi Nakabooty [https://spankchain.com/]
- Fapcoin [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/fapcoin/] defunct
- Pornrocket [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/pornrocket/]
- PornStar [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/pornstar/]
- Intimate [https://intimate.io/]
- Okoin [https://okoin.io/] defunct?
- Analcoin [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/analcoin/]
- VGINA [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/vgina/]
Has it been useful? I doubt it.
- Sexcoin, launched in 2013 [https://sexcoin.info] [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/sexcoin/]
- Titcoin, TIT [https://titcoin.github.io] [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/titcoin/]
- Tittiecoin, launched in 2014: "TittieCoin Accelerates Your Digital Transformation", now Limitless VIP? [https://tittiecoin.com] [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/limitless-vip/]
- Spankchain, by Spanktoshi Nakabooty [https://spankchain.com/]
- Fapcoin [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/fapcoin/] defunct
- Pornrocket [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/pornrocket/]
- PornStar [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/pornstar/]
- Intimate [https://intimate.io/]
- Okoin [https://okoin.io/] defunct?
- Analcoin [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/analcoin/]
- VGINA [https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/vgina/]
Has it been useful? I doubt it.
There is zero reason to come up with an alt/shit coin for this. Accept payments using a popular crypto-currency and link your customers to reputable exchanges they can purchase the currency at.
FWIW, most of these were low-effort projects with silly names which were either jokes or pump-and-dump schemes. As far as I'm aware, none of them have made any meaningful inroads into the adult content industry.
Spanktoshi Nakabooty
I hope that was a legal name change.
I hope that was a legal name change.
Wow, this is really bad for crypto. Even though they can circumvent VISA technically with coins, OnlyFans doesn't want to go down that path. Probably because it immediately becomes partially funded by money laundering or sex trafficking, and they get shutdown eventually
> Probably because it immediately becomes partially funded by money laundering or sex trafficking, and they get shutdown eventually
They could try to block that (they probably need to already), especially as the alternative seems to be to shut down now.
They could try to block that (they probably need to already), especially as the alternative seems to be to shut down now.
Why are you even looking at altcoins for this?
adult industry once again on the cutting edge of tech
I know of people building OF in crypto, I’m sure they’re happy right now.
there are already a few competitors, and afaik pornhub cleaned up its content in order to follow that model. If they are registered to hands-off countries they ll probably steal OF's thunder overnight.
Serious Question: Do they all use it for adult content? I've never used OF but see the porn/adult references all the time so I assumed that is all it was (obviously not it seems?)
I am sure someone is going to come up with silly edge case examples, but OnlyFans is for porn, and anyone else who says otherwise is trying to spin you.
Of course they do. No one paying to see
Someone put legos together
Saying anything on the internet these days is a risk, you're almost guaranteed to be wrong somehow.
Exploiting this, you get Cunningham's Law: "the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer."
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
Better: any made up story may become true eventually.
I've experienced this first hand. I was a compulsive liar in primary school and one time I told my friends that I saw a webcomic that had this gimmick that every panel ended with the phrase <insert topic> is EVIL(BAD) ("Złe/zły/zła" in Polish).
Oddly specific, isn't it?
Well here it is in the flesh:
https://www.deviantart.com/oliko/art/Pablo-Webcomic-ep-221-1...
I've experienced this first hand. I was a compulsive liar in primary school and one time I told my friends that I saw a webcomic that had this gimmick that every panel ended with the phrase <insert topic> is EVIL(BAD) ("Złe/zły/zła" in Polish).
Oddly specific, isn't it?
Well here it is in the flesh:
https://www.deviantart.com/oliko/art/Pablo-Webcomic-ep-221-1...
I think this must be the most overlapping possible Venn diagram of HN and OF, no?
There is a definitely a well known Australian IG account with a Patreon I could see pivoting to this
Looking like GabPay might find a big new client
[deleted]
> In order to ensure the long-term sustainability of our platform, and the continue to host an inclusive community of creators and fans, we must evolve our content guidelines
So, they are trying to get inclusive by excluding most of their community...
I understand it is bullshit and the only reason they do it is because porn is a difficult investment, with a lot of credit card fraud and limited opportunities for partnership. But still, OnlyFans made a name for itself with porn, and even managed the impressive feat of staying mostly clean regarding abuse and copyright infringement.
It is a difficult niche to fit in, but by abandoning it, they will compete with everyone else, including Google, Facebook, etc... and I don't think they will stand a chance. It is like, say, a shop that sells craft beer next to Walmart. Craft beer suppliers may be unreliable, have limited stock, with wild variation in quality, etc... it is much easier to deal with large industrial breweries, but if you stop selling craft beer because it is too hard, people will not buy your new, "guaranteed profit" industrial beer, they will go to Walmart, because Walmart if bigger and can negotiate lower prices, and people can get their beers with their groceries. The only reason the craft beer shop can make money is because they do the kind of thing Walmart refuses to do.
So, they are trying to get inclusive by excluding most of their community...
I understand it is bullshit and the only reason they do it is because porn is a difficult investment, with a lot of credit card fraud and limited opportunities for partnership. But still, OnlyFans made a name for itself with porn, and even managed the impressive feat of staying mostly clean regarding abuse and copyright infringement.
It is a difficult niche to fit in, but by abandoning it, they will compete with everyone else, including Google, Facebook, etc... and I don't think they will stand a chance. It is like, say, a shop that sells craft beer next to Walmart. Craft beer suppliers may be unreliable, have limited stock, with wild variation in quality, etc... it is much easier to deal with large industrial breweries, but if you stop selling craft beer because it is too hard, people will not buy your new, "guaranteed profit" industrial beer, they will go to Walmart, because Walmart if bigger and can negotiate lower prices, and people can get their beers with their groceries. The only reason the craft beer shop can make money is because they do the kind of thing Walmart refuses to do.
"Diversity" and "inclusivity" are weasel words, they mean absolutely nothing when it comes to corporate speech, it's something you throw in a PR statement to appeal to young people who vote left and political pundits, nothing more.
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.
Fairly good explanation of it being about far more than nudity. They have created a casino like experience for emotional interaction.
https://youtu.be/ji5qepCx-8s
https://youtu.be/ji5qepCx-8s
I'd like to note, though, that this video also treats OnlyFans as a porn-only site. It literally starts with asking "Why do people spend money on OnlyFans?" when what they're asking is "why do people spend money on porn".
Thank you, that's a perfect example of the sort of thing I was fishing for with my question.
Very helpful video. Also mentions their sister site myfreecams. That's probably where the x-rated videos will remain. Seems like they're splitting the brand to have one NSFW and one SFW.
I assume they will end up like Tumblr after it went Safe for Work. Still around but nowhere near as popular and a shell of its former self.
Not necessarily. Discord is a pretty popular platform for exclusive access to selected people, e.g. Patreon supporters. As long as OF allows this kind of link it might stay relevant.
Except they have the reputation of porn, but now they don't have the porn. I wouldn't go sign up for an OnlyFans account in order to follow a SFW creator, simply because the reputation OnlyFans has. However I would join their Discord or Patreon.
Now their in this weird uncanny valley of "adult content" combined with "no adult content". Seems hard to shake that image.
Now their in this weird uncanny valley of "adult content" combined with "no adult content". Seems hard to shake that image.
> simply because the reputation OnlyFans has
Lol. Watching a musician on OF and your friend looks over your shoulder.
Lol. Watching a musician on OF and your friend looks over your shoulder.
Not to mention being associated with extremely bad business decision of dumping 30-50% your customers in one swoop
Did you know Pornhub has a social network-like function and achievements? But if a coworker wanted to connect with you by asking you to add them on PornHub, you'd probably not think that this is about a casual coworker friendship.
It's going to be similar if people link to OnlyFans instead of Patreon (or Locals).
It's going to be similar if people link to OnlyFans instead of Patreon (or Locals).
Patreon already exists for exclusive SFW content, and with exclusive Discords you can also interact with other fans of the same content. Not sure where OnlyFans would fit in other than "different Patreon".
Tumblr is exactly what I had in mind. It will be a much less popular place with other copycats just taking over on that business model.
[deleted]
The article says
> Creators will still be allowed to post nude photos and videos, provided they’re consistent with OnlyFans’ policy, the company said Thursday.
So I am guessing the distinction is nudes vs sex acts?
> Creators will still be allowed to post nude photos and videos, provided they’re consistent with OnlyFans’ policy, the company said Thursday.
So I am guessing the distinction is nudes vs sex acts?
...for how long? There were rumors they were getting rid of adult and then they put out an announcement saying that they would always be inclusive of sex workers. Then they just announced this.
Their credibility is gone.
Their credibility is gone.
What Credibility - They are 75% owned by Leonid_Radvinsky.
He puts the sketch in sketchy (porn click farms in the 90's, sued by Amazon and Microsoft working together for spamming emails by the millions in the early 2000's).
He puts the sketch in sketchy (porn click farms in the 90's, sued by Amazon and Microsoft working together for spamming emails by the millions in the early 2000's).
The nudity exception is probably more along the lines of the usual carve-outs for 'scientific, educational, or artistic' content.
That's my question, too - I thought OnlyFans was a hosting platform for personal porn sites; I remember there was a big uproar a few months back when some TikTok influencer joined the site and started posting non-adult content. People were upset that they were diluting a site that's specifically for adult content.
Not quite accurate. Bella Thorne joined Onlyfans and promised "no clothes naked" content in exchange for her $200 subscription fee. She made millions of dollars but then only sent clothed and obscured pictures to her subscribers. After thousands of people demanded refunds, Onlyfans changed their policies to heavily limit how much subscribers could be charged for content, how much they could pay, and increased the creator payout wait time from one week to three weeks. This heavily damaged the incomes of thousands of people overnight.
lol dang, didn't know she duped that many thirsty fans so badly.
Linus Media Group (Linus Tech Tips) started an OnlyFans parody-style account for April Fool's this year
https://onlyfans.com/reallinustechtips
Ended up being one of the top accounts on the platform for a while.
https://onlyfans.com/reallinustechtips
Ended up being one of the top accounts on the platform for a while.
They also donated the income to a right to repair act.
I think the initial purpose was similar to Patreon: allowing creators a way to monetize. It just became famous due to the pornographic content.
To be more specific, it was a direct competitor to Patreon, but patreon banned porn and onlyfans didn’t, thus the market differentiation.
Patreon has decidedly 18+ content on it. It even has 18+ interstitial pages to make sure you’re 18+
From Patreon Support:
While we allow nudity and for creators to push the boundaries of art, we also have guidelines against funding pornography on patreon. In our community guidelines: We define pornographic material as real people engaging in sexual acts such as masturbation or sexual intercourse on camera.
While we allow nudity and for creators to push the boundaries of art, we also have guidelines against funding pornography on patreon. In our community guidelines: We define pornographic material as real people engaging in sexual acts such as masturbation or sexual intercourse on camera.
what are 18+ interstitial pages? I didn't find much on 1st page of ddg
Interstitial pages are pages that pop up when you intend to go somewhere else, but need to complete an approval process, like the “I agree to the EULA” page
Edit: an 18+ interstitial would just be one that asks if the person is 18+
Edit: an 18+ interstitial would just be one that asks if the person is 18+
It's gotten taken over by celebrities. They don't promote content from girls selling their nudes anymore.
Even dead ones get it better. I took one look at it recently and saw lil peep on there. My first thought was wow they're really putting a dead rapper's meat out there like that? But nah, it's like unreleased music videos and shit. Gotta wonder who is milking that.
Even dead ones get it better. I took one look at it recently and saw lil peep on there. My first thought was wow they're really putting a dead rapper's meat out there like that? But nah, it's like unreleased music videos and shit. Gotta wonder who is milking that.
Rachel Dolezal joining was probably the shark-jumping in this trend.
It's a huge win for PornHub which already has a robust amateur porn monetation platform. I suspect most explicit OF users already use PH for teasers and free content. Most likely they will move all content to PH and leave OF behind
Had. PornHub are still blocked by MasterCard, Visa and Discover and since American Express was never an option, that’s a lock, no credits cards for PornHub.
Think “show your titties,” not “suck a dick.”
Man, I would hate to be the judge of "nude but not sexually explicit" content
Good old "I know it when I see it"
I'm sure you could find a few volunteers.
Fourth paragraph
> That popularity also brought with it additional scrutiny, and OnlyFans is positioning itself more as a forum for musicians, fitness instructors and chefs than sex workers. While many of its most-popular creators post videos of themselves engaging in sexual behavior, several mainstream celebrities like Bella Thorne, Cardi B and Tyga have also set up accounts.
> That popularity also brought with it additional scrutiny, and OnlyFans is positioning itself more as a forum for musicians, fitness instructors and chefs than sex workers. While many of its most-popular creators post videos of themselves engaging in sexual behavior, several mainstream celebrities like Bella Thorne, Cardi B and Tyga have also set up accounts.
Bella Thorne was only there for explicit stuff.
Not sure about the other celebs.
Not sure about the other celebs.
Are you sure? Another user posted this elsewhere in this thread, a few posts below yours:
>Not quite accurate. Bella Thorne joined Onlyfans and promised "no clothes naked" content in exchange for her $200 subscription fee. She made millions of dollars but then only sent clothed and obscured pictures to her subscribers. After thousands of people demanded refunds, Onlyfans changed their policies to heavily limit how much subscribers could be charged for content, how much they could pay, and increased the creator payout wait time from one week to three weeks. This heavily damaged the incomes of thousands of people overnight.
>Not quite accurate. Bella Thorne joined Onlyfans and promised "no clothes naked" content in exchange for her $200 subscription fee. She made millions of dollars but then only sent clothed and obscured pictures to her subscribers. After thousands of people demanded refunds, Onlyfans changed their policies to heavily limit how much subscribers could be charged for content, how much they could pay, and increased the creator payout wait time from one week to three weeks. This heavily damaged the incomes of thousands of people overnight.
Yeah. She was there because of “no clothes naked” which is explicit. She ended up being deceitful and hurting others. Still means she was there because of explicit stuff. in other words, there’s a reason she made millions on onlyfans in no time and not with a brand new Payreon.
There's cooking videos, yoga, gardening and other benign stuff on OF, believe it or not.
Pretty sure that content is not what is bringing in the monies.
I watch several channels on YT, and I think they have excellent value (educational like 3Blue1Brown, entertaining like Davie504, musical like Ichika Nito and so on). I really enjoy watching/listening to them especially when I do something around the house like cleaning. But the moment they said they go OnlyFans and I have to pay $10 in order to watch them, I can't imagine I'd switch.
Is it OnlyFans or paying money for things that's the issue? Would you pay $10 on Paetreon or for YouTube premium? Would you pay $1 to OnlyFans? How about paying $10, but no one would know you were paying OnlyFans?
It's the immense hassle involved with paying small amounts of money to many different people. Sites like YouTube (and presumably OnlyFans) fix that problem.
Why not just feature that stuff on the homepage? Most adult-oriented channels are run solo, so they're distributing links via social channels.
Same as Twitter. It's awash in porn but you wouldn't really know it if you stuck to the default trends and searches.
Same as Twitter. It's awash in porn but you wouldn't really know it if you stuck to the default trends and searches.
There's benign stuff on PornHub too, but I don't think they'd be able to survive without their adult content either.
Yes but if somebody says "drop your OF" is not talking about gardening. Mostly it is known for sexual material.
InRange moved to pornhub when they were banned from Youtube. While cute and all, that made 0% revenue for them.
[deleted]
On ThePornDude, there is a section called "free OnlyFans leaks sites", which is an excellent example of actual content.
Stealing content from self-employed creators is pretty low. There is plenty of free porn on the internet that doesn't involve theft.
Agree, furthermore, those sites are content scrapers from other sources.
Most of which is posted in violation of copy right.
Sadly I know girls who are using OnlyFans to keep a roof over their heads and stay out of abusive relationships. Whether we like what they're doing to make money OnlyFans was providing them a much-needed revenue stream. Now that's being taken away from them by the morality police who won't be affected by the consequences of their own decisions.
With all due respect, the fact that anyone is forced into porn to get housing be safe from abusive partners is the indictment of a society.
I get that it's a de facto situation for some, but let's not drop the onus on "morality police", payment processors, and OnlyFans for a massive societal failure to help vulnerable people. You could take that argument as far as you want (prostitution, drug sales, etc). There is some level of dignity that everyone's entitled to. If someone does OF by choice because they love it, good for them. If someone is compelled to in order to feed their kids or leave an abusive partner, then we should all be ashamed of that.
I get that it's a de facto situation for some, but let's not drop the onus on "morality police", payment processors, and OnlyFans for a massive societal failure to help vulnerable people. You could take that argument as far as you want (prostitution, drug sales, etc). There is some level of dignity that everyone's entitled to. If someone does OF by choice because they love it, good for them. If someone is compelled to in order to feed their kids or leave an abusive partner, then we should all be ashamed of that.
A huge chunk of the planet is forced into jobs they don't like to provide for themselves and their families. What's so "dignifying" about a job getting humiliated by entitled customers in retail or waitressing for minimum wage or breaking your body doing hard manual labor? Religious morality is the only reason a much more safe, comfortable and lucrative option like OnlyFans is banned.
Exactly. People talk as if these girls are oblivious to the fact that they can work some shitty minimum wage jobs.
I totally get their mindset. If it wasn’t for my own residual sexual conservatism, I’d much rather be an OnlyFans sex worker than some underpaid wage slave.
I totally get their mindset. If it wasn’t for my own residual sexual conservatism, I’d much rather be an OnlyFans sex worker than some underpaid wage slave.
I think you should accept some people think of it differently.
And let's be frank here. OF is probably a viable financial opportunity - on average - for a small number of more attractive that normal people, and it's probably weighted towards younger women. I'd love to have hard data to present to you, but I can't find it.
I have literally zero problem with people who want to use OF to support themselves. However, let's agree 1) that some people for whom it would be a viable financial option find it objectionable and 2) it's a less viable financial option for some, even if they don't find it objectionable.
I think that groups 1 & 2 in there should still be able to work a 40 hour job and pay for food and rent, and still be able to save something to retire if they want to. And they probably should fear starving or dying of exposure even if they don't have a job.
Call it unrealistic, but I prefer to fix that problem, too.
And let's be frank here. OF is probably a viable financial opportunity - on average - for a small number of more attractive that normal people, and it's probably weighted towards younger women. I'd love to have hard data to present to you, but I can't find it.
I have literally zero problem with people who want to use OF to support themselves. However, let's agree 1) that some people for whom it would be a viable financial option find it objectionable and 2) it's a less viable financial option for some, even if they don't find it objectionable.
I think that groups 1 & 2 in there should still be able to work a 40 hour job and pay for food and rent, and still be able to save something to retire if they want to. And they probably should fear starving or dying of exposure even if they don't have a job.
Call it unrealistic, but I prefer to fix that problem, too.
I am completely fine with people having their own views on this issue and not participating in it if they don't like it, blocking it on their computers or whatever else. The problem is these views being imposed upon the greater population for no reason.
[deleted]
The point is, why would you specifically single out sex work? Why should the people "still be able to work a 40 hour job and pay for food and rent" without getting involved in sex work in particular? I.e. jobs with far less dignity, or far more danger (e.g. logging), less comfort, etc., are ok in that broad "work a 40 hour job" category, but sex work is not ok? You could as well say "some people find retail jobs degrading/exhausting/unfulfilling [many if not most retail workers do, I suspect], so they should still be able to work a 40 hour [non-retail] job and pay for food and rent".
The only real reason to single out OF (an objectively superior option to a median job, if you can get it) is precisely the puritanical morality.
The only real reason to single out OF (an objectively superior option to a median job, if you can get it) is precisely the puritanical morality.
> I think you should accept some people think of it differently
But why? Because their parents told them so?
Is there some fundamental reason to see this differently? Some cultures accept murder too, should we accept that some people think of it differently? I say fuck those people.
But why? Because their parents told them so?
Is there some fundamental reason to see this differently? Some cultures accept murder too, should we accept that some people think of it differently? I say fuck those people.
[deleted]
All cultures accept murder. The ones that didn't were killed by the ones that did.
How so? Murder seems to be very looked down upon in most cultures and is not generally accepted. There are nations that wage war, yes, but this is not generally accepted as good. And in daily life, murder has been basically banished completely (compared to, for example, 200 years ago, where murders for honor or duels were more socially acceptable).
> Murder seems to be very looked down upon in most cultures and is not generally accepted.
Mostly for people’s in-groups. The care goes down as in-group association goes down.
—-
America, Europe/NATO, and other allied countries have unnecessary “wars” and conflicts and use things like drones to murder people. Drones killing people randomly isn’t war a lot of the time.
Murder definition is silly. Says “unlawful” killing of someone. Who determines what’s lawful when the countries included at the beginning do stuff overseas? Obviously some will consider all the killing done as murder.
It’s not hard to say we (as in the west) murdered Yemenese, Afghans/Pakistanis (the drones attacking people), Palestinians, and more in recent years. Then we have the big name ones like murdering the Iranian general a year ago.
via equity, alliance, and diplomatic and financial support. Not directly, but murder charges in most countries can be charged to people who aren’t directly doing the killing too
Mostly for people’s in-groups. The care goes down as in-group association goes down.
—-
America, Europe/NATO, and other allied countries have unnecessary “wars” and conflicts and use things like drones to murder people. Drones killing people randomly isn’t war a lot of the time.
Murder definition is silly. Says “unlawful” killing of someone. Who determines what’s lawful when the countries included at the beginning do stuff overseas? Obviously some will consider all the killing done as murder.
It’s not hard to say we (as in the west) murdered Yemenese, Afghans/Pakistanis (the drones attacking people), Palestinians, and more in recent years. Then we have the big name ones like murdering the Iranian general a year ago.
via equity, alliance, and diplomatic and financial support. Not directly, but murder charges in most countries can be charged to people who aren’t directly doing the killing too
American culture did not think killing Osama Bin Laden was objectionable.
Are you saying that working retail or construction is about the same as doing porn in terms of how society treats you? That does not match my experience by a long shot. They are qualitatively different.
> Religious morality is the only reason a much more safe, comfortable and lucrative option like OnlyFans is banned.
I do not think this is right either. Take away all the religious baggage and still parents will try to keep their daughters from doing porn. Change our neurobiology so we don't act that way and, well you have a different species.
> Religious morality is the only reason a much more safe, comfortable and lucrative option like OnlyFans is banned.
I do not think this is right either. Take away all the religious baggage and still parents will try to keep their daughters from doing porn. Change our neurobiology so we don't act that way and, well you have a different species.
I believe they're saying working retail or construction is about the same as doing porn in regards to how some people have to work jobs that break them down (emotionally, physically or socially) for money.
> I believe they're saying working retail or construction is about the same as doing porn in regards to how some people have to work jobs that break them down (emotionally, physically or socially) for money.
You believe the long lasting consequences of doing porn and being a waitress are exactly the same? You've never been involved or talked to a porn performer. Suicide rates for the latter don't lie.
You believe the long lasting consequences of doing porn and being a waitress are exactly the same? You've never been involved or talked to a porn performer. Suicide rates for the latter don't lie.
No, I believe the original commenter believes that. I never said it was my personal belief.
That said suicide rates at my engineering school were high enough that the administration had to close roof accesses :)
That said suicide rates at my engineering school were high enough that the administration had to close roof accesses :)
>What's so "dignifying" about a job getting humiliated by entitled customers in retail or waitressing for minimum wage or breaking your body doing hard manual labor?
The fact that you can (at least in theory) quit, recover and find a better job, or get promoted. Unlike humiliating videos of yourself being on the internet forever.
The fact that you can (at least in theory) quit, recover and find a better job, or get promoted. Unlike humiliating videos of yourself being on the internet forever.
[deleted]
I do not consume OF but tbh if I was an attractive girl I would probably choose making 80k a year on OF over 30k a year as a hostess or factory worker or whatever. I don't think it is exploitative or has less dignity than these.
> the fact that anyone is forced into porn to get housing be safe from abusive partners is the indictment of a society.
You're right, we should tell them to wait until society is fixed.
You're right, we should tell them to wait until society is fixed.
You make the claim they are forced but do you have any sources for that claim? All I can say for sure is that now, they are forced out of porn. This problem is not directly a morality problem. It is a chargeback issue. More like chargebacks via stigmiziation of sexuality but that is just an opinion.
> With all due respect, the fact that anyone is forced into porn to get housing be safe from abusive partners is the indictment of a society.
with all due respect, most people are 'forced' into some sort of labor to get housing or escape abusive partners. It's the way society is built. If it's sex work or not, that's a different story but not by much. Work is work.
with all due respect, most people are 'forced' into some sort of labor to get housing or escape abusive partners. It's the way society is built. If it's sex work or not, that's a different story but not by much. Work is work.
They're not forced into it the same way nobody is forced to be an under the table construction laborer. They just consider it to be a better all things considered way to make a living than getting a fast food job or whatever.
It doesn't have to be "porn".
People are making huge bank with content you could post on Instagram without fear of being banned.
People are making huge bank with content you could post on Instagram without fear of being banned.
[deleted]
Women, especially attractive women always had this option, historically it was just usually done through marriage.
Arguably one can claim that marrying upwards isn’t always bad and quite often they are loved and cared for but in the end this is nothing new.
Arguably one can claim that marrying upwards isn’t always bad and quite often they are loved and cared for but in the end this is nothing new.
The "morality police" are the ones who say that women must keep their dignity but live on the street instead.
I'm ashamed to participate in a society where anyone has to do work they find degrading. We have the technology to eliminate the you'll-starve-if-you-don't-work dynamic. It's heartbreaking that we don't also have the political will to do so.
Pardon my ignorance, but when was it ever about technology? Seems technological progress has done nothing to alleviate the starve-if-you-don't-work condition. Higher industrial efficiency in the 19th/early 20th centuries came with the promise of less work and more leisure, but that never arrived. I'm not sure why, but I'm guessing it's an economic/sociological problem, not a technological one. Curious to hear what ideas you have enough.
I think we're in agreement. It's totally an economic/sociological problem.
I was just pointing out that technology's ability to reduce scarcity keeps increasing--so as time goes on, our obsession with scarcity as a motivator is increasingly embarrassing.
I was just pointing out that technology's ability to reduce scarcity keeps increasing--so as time goes on, our obsession with scarcity as a motivator is increasingly embarrassing.
> There is some level of dignity that everyone's entitled to. If someone does OF by choice because they love it, good for them. If someone is compelled to in order to feed their kids or leave an abusive partner, then we should all be ashamed of that.
Well, it's still more dignified than telemarketing - the worker, the viewers and the platform all benefit from the transaction, unlike telemarketing call centres, where the worker is paid to screw over people at scale. If you want an indictment of a society, I'd first focus on people being forced into jobs that involve hurting other people.
Well, it's still more dignified than telemarketing - the worker, the viewers and the platform all benefit from the transaction, unlike telemarketing call centres, where the worker is paid to screw over people at scale. If you want an indictment of a society, I'd first focus on people being forced into jobs that involve hurting other people.
> With all due respect, the fact that anyone is forced into porn to get housing be safe from abusive partners is the indictment of a society.
I absolutely agree. A society where people have to resort to prostitution in order to keep a roof on their heads FAILED, politically, morally and culturally. In fact, that's exactly how things go in third world countries...
I absolutely agree. A society where people have to resort to prostitution in order to keep a roof on their heads FAILED, politically, morally and culturally. In fact, that's exactly how things go in third world countries...
I'd like to agree in some way - but I wonder, is there any countries in the world where a woman can leave her husband, take her kids and have a safe place to live the next day?
I know there are 'shelters' in various cities (and the one in my town has been over 110% capacity for like 20 years (every time I've checked) afaik) - but I mean they can move into a place and start working a minimum wage job and not worry about paying the bills for the roof / utilities / child car / rice and beans?
I'd love to know about such places, I don't think this is possible in the US, and never heard of such options elsewhere, but could exist.
I know there are 'shelters' in various cities (and the one in my town has been over 110% capacity for like 20 years (every time I've checked) afaik) - but I mean they can move into a place and start working a minimum wage job and not worry about paying the bills for the roof / utilities / child car / rice and beans?
I'd love to know about such places, I don't think this is possible in the US, and never heard of such options elsewhere, but could exist.
> If someone washes dishes for a living by choice because they love it, good for them. If someone is compelled to in order to feed their kids or leave an abusive partner, then we should all be ashamed of that.
Agreed, I think this is a crappy policy and I feel sorry for those that would get hurt by it, but blaming it for the suffering of domestic violence victims is over-the-top.
[deleted]
With all due respect your opinion is that of almost all human beings.
From the Taliban to Democrats to Republicans to Socialists to Libertarians. (except the aside about "If someone does OF by choice because they love it, good for them")
So I don't see the relevance.
OP offers a solution to keep the current maxima for these girls. Fight for their well being and ask OF and payment processors to let them stay.
The best actionable plan from your comment I can see is, lets dump these girls in the worst of it so it shames people into improving society.
From the Taliban to Democrats to Republicans to Socialists to Libertarians. (except the aside about "If someone does OF by choice because they love it, good for them")
So I don't see the relevance.
OP offers a solution to keep the current maxima for these girls. Fight for their well being and ask OF and payment processors to let them stay.
The best actionable plan from your comment I can see is, lets dump these girls in the worst of it so it shames people into improving society.
I agree that payment processors shouldn't get to say what people do for employment or how people spend their money - but how is it that OnlyFans is keeping women out of abusive relationships? If they couldn't earn money selling pornography they'd have to return to abusive partners?
OnlyFans is only a lucrative option for a small group of people - young attractive women. How is it that every other segment of the population can keep out of abusive relationships and beneath a roof (to the extent they can) without the benefit of OnlyFans?
OnlyFans is only a lucrative option for a small group of people - young attractive women. How is it that every other segment of the population can keep out of abusive relationships and beneath a roof (to the extent they can) without the benefit of OnlyFans?
Firstly, I don't believe you. I'm sure those girls have something to offer society besides showing their bodies for cash. They just don't bother trying because they don't have to.
Second, OnlyFans is an abusive relationship. It's using women during the few years they are attractive enough to exploit the instincts of men. The instant their looks wear off, they're out.
Second, OnlyFans is an abusive relationship. It's using women during the few years they are attractive enough to exploit the instincts of men. The instant their looks wear off, they're out.
They're working a job that requires little work for good pay, not sure how this is any more abusive than any other job without a career path.
Note that OnlyFans doesn't kick out the older people, they just get less popular.
Note that OnlyFans doesn't kick out the older people, they just get less popular.
Can they not setup an account on another for profit service which will commit to verify identity, age, and consent of performers?
Yes, in the same way that you can set up a video content channel on a site other than YouTube. It's not the hosting, it's the massive amount of traffic and exposure that can't be replicated by another service.
Have never used OF, but does it really have a good discovery algorithm? From the outside it appears that most new subscribers are from the links that are shared everywhere, similarly to Patreon.
This seems like an unecessarily cynical take. Do you think it's a good thing that people are forced to sell their bodies to survive? Obvious to me that regardless of whether or not onlyfans shuts down, we should have social safety nets so that these people aren't forced to do that.
Well, maybe they can start working and be productive to the society like the rest of us. Also, the fact that a girl can sustain a life just by taking nudes shows you how much different the both genders actually are. There's no equality. Also why is no one crying about wage gap in porn?
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=...
https://twitter.com/danprimack/status/1428420774449266691?s=...
The fact that OF is not all in on crypto payments is a massive indictment of crypto as a payment mechanism.
Even if OF could accept crypto, they'd still need an off-ramp back into fiat. They can't operate only on crypto, even just stablecoins, which is itself the indictment of crypto.
There's plenty of services for that - e.g. Coinbase has an enterprise one for that use case.
nope, not for adult content/services https://commerce.coinbase.com/legal/terms-of-service-2021-08...
Okay, that seems much worse than OF since there's no chargebacks or anyone over them for it to be an issue.
It's not about chargebacks its about sex trafficking liability
They need a bank no matter what. They can't do payroll in stablecoins.
But if coinbase doesn’t want to be associated with OF, they no longer have that avenue.
It might be easier to operate a dodgy site off of USPS money orders than it would be off of cryptocurrency.
I'm still surprised nobody tried to bridge the two .. it seems like the most obvious of shark fad business move
I assume because as soon as you become the "place where people get crypto for adult content" then the same issues that OF is running into now become your issues as well.
Unless people are getting paid directly in crypto, they are purchasing it from somewhere, and wherever that entry point is will have this problem.
Unless people are getting paid directly in crypto, they are purchasing it from somewhere, and wherever that entry point is will have this problem.
Yes, already now buying cryptos is ridiculously difficult. Any reputable operator requires KYC, which is a similar process to opening a bank account including submitting a photo ID. That's a pretty good deterrent for the random Joe against signing up on a porn site even if it's all legal.
While cryptos in of themselves are decentralized and inherently unregulatable, people forget that the interface with the real financial world is very much vulnerable.
While cryptos in of themselves are decentralized and inherently unregulatable, people forget that the interface with the real financial world is very much vulnerable.
True, but there are services like Purse.io which let you order on Amazon and pay with crypto. So theoretically, you could have your fans pay you in crypto, and you could convert that to whatever goods you want. It might not work as your only income, but could be a valuable way to supplement it.
Huh? Many services on the Internet accept crypto, Namecheap is a good example.
Alongside credit cards not in lieu of them.
It also highlights the lack of anonymity with crypto - everyone gets to see what you spend money on.
Not if you use Monero.
https://www.getmonero.org/get-started/what-is-monero/
https://www.getmonero.org/get-started/what-is-monero/
I love Monero, but I think it is more intimidating for no-coiners than bitcoin.
You can’t buy it on Coinbase or many other exchanges, and the wallets are not as polished as the btc wallets I have used.
So if you’re trying to get your fans to pay you in XMR, you would be creating a lot of friction for them.
You can’t buy it on Coinbase or many other exchanges, and the wallets are not as polished as the btc wallets I have used.
So if you’re trying to get your fans to pay you in XMR, you would be creating a lot of friction for them.
This is a massive exaggeration. I've spent a fair amount of crypto without trying to hide it, please tell me what on.
Maybe the state can find my addresses with a bit more effort than they can find my CC purchases but random people or friends and family not so much unless I want them to.
Maybe the state can find my addresses with a bit more effort than they can find my CC purchases but random people or friends and family not so much unless I want them to.
> random people or friends and family not so much unless I want them to
What I mean is if you ever send F&F money they'll see all your previous purchases too, and if OF is a well known wallet its easy for them to see that detail.
What I mean is if you ever send F&F money they'll see all your previous purchases too, and if OF is a well known wallet its easy for them to see that detail.
Presumably OF would use a ton of auto generated wallets which a random family member wouldn't easily connect to them and remotely savvy users will send money from their exchange to a separate wallet for either family or OF.
There is no limit to the number of addresses you can have in Bitcoin. Best practice is to NEVER reuse an address. So this is all a lot harder than you're making it out to be. If I sent you some BTC right now, you wouldn't know what else I'd been up to with it, how much I have, which addresses are mine, etc.
If you never reuse an address that makes it easy to ignore those right? I'm not sure how it helps.
Most wallets create new change addresses for every transaction which eliminates that sort of trivial transaction association.
With most crypto, yeah. Monero happens to be private and anonymous.
[deleted]
Or that crypto is only 12 years old which is really fucking young for a currency.
idk... the Euro was introduced in 1998/1999 I heard it was already pretty huge a couple of years later.
You're comparing a government mandated currency change vs grassroots currency.
That's not young at all. How much trouble did people have accepting Euro in 2011?
A government mandate certainly helps a currency develop.
Arguably scepticism towards the Euro as a currency and Britain wanting nothing to do with it after the crisis was a key pillar of Brexit, so I wouldn’t say it went down amazingly. I remember during the campaign there was a fairly widespread notion that an overly Europhile government like Tony Blair’s might irreversibly commit the UK to the Eurozone, which was always an act that polled terribly.
Nothing is on crypto payments because you never know how you are actually paying
There are stable coins as well, where you know exactly what you're paying.
Or that just the transfer fees would be more than most payments.
Or that no one would be able to properly use those payouts.
Or that no one would be able to properly use those payouts.
This is why America needs to work beyond it's fascination with creditcards.
Your bank can't block shit and has to process whatever transaction you want short of the terrorist watchlist.
Your bank can't block shit and has to process whatever transaction you want short of the terrorist watchlist.
And yet they all stopped processing payments for PornHub.
Please cite a source(s) for your claim, re: "banks can't block shit"
Please cite a source(s) for your claim, re: "banks can't block shit"
PH was blocked by payment processors (Visa and Mastercard): https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/10/pornhub-mast...
Parent is making distinction between credit cards and banks.
Parent is making distinction between credit cards and banks.
Fair point, though I'd still like to see a source, re: banks not being allowed to "block shit".
> Your bank can't block shit and has to process whatever transaction you want
I don't think this is true for things that are in a gray area - storing profits from cannabis where its legalized and purchasing cryptocurrency
https://decrypt.co/39226/banks-still-blocking-crypto-transac...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthoban/2020/08/18/the-cann...
(Although the cannabis one seems to have changed recently)
I don't think this is true for things that are in a gray area - storing profits from cannabis where its legalized and purchasing cryptocurrency
https://decrypt.co/39226/banks-still-blocking-crypto-transac...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthoban/2020/08/18/the-cann...
(Although the cannabis one seems to have changed recently)
Our banks are horribly, horribly insecure. I use a credit card because we don't have a good way to use our banks.
Weren't banks closing accounts over Coinbase transactions a couple years ago?
> Your bank can't block shit and has to process whatever transaction you want short of the terrorist watchlist.
Try opening a bank account at BoA for your cannabis business.
Try opening a bank account at BoA for your cannabis business.
Since the Obama administration the government has been using threats of increased regulatory scrutiny against banks that do not block transactions dealing with certain undesirable industries including guns, cannabis, and porn -- whether such transactions are legal or not.
> Your bank can't block shit and has to process whatever transaction you want short of the terrorist watchlist.
Is that true?
Is that true?
No. I'm in the US and my bank even blocked sign in bonuses "just to be sure everyone is ok with it because it's a lot of money". Using plain old inter banking transfers for something like OnlyFans subscriptions is suicide and the new APIs like Zelle or Venmo are subject to even more internal regulations than credit cards regarding percentage of fraud transactions/porn.
Seems like it's the cost of fraud protection then. The European SEPA has virtually no fraud protection, unless it was a technical error (duplicate payments etc). The upside is that no-one cares who you transact with. All payments are final.
> The European SEPA has virtually no fraud protection, unless it was a technical error (duplicate payments etc). The upside is that no-one cares who you transact with. All payments are final.
Yeah, I'm used to using that domestically and rarely for business. We usually use Giros[1] for business and now Swish for more personal stuff. I think most areas now have Klarna (even the US according to Wikipedia). I wonder how much they would interfere in things like this.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giro
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swish_(payment)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klarna
Yeah, I'm used to using that domestically and rarely for business. We usually use Giros[1] for business and now Swish for more personal stuff. I think most areas now have Klarna (even the US according to Wikipedia). I wonder how much they would interfere in things like this.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giro
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swish_(payment)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klarna
Not with SEPA Direct Debit (which accounts for most of my online payments); I can "return" (get back) money spent like that easily via my bank.
Yes, they will even support drug cartels and actually even terrorists -- at least until they get caught. Nobody goes to prison anyway and the resulting fines are just price of business. See HSBC, for example.
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 applied to Apple in the background. Everyone remembers what happened to Joe Nacchio, and resisting such pressure is harder now than it was over the last four years.
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 applied to Apple in the background. Everyone remembers what happened to Joe Nacchio, and resisting such pressure is harder now than it was over the last four years.
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.
> Question I know nothing about is besides being stigmatized, do these industries have higher fraud rates?
Very much so. Adult businesses have extremely high rates of friendly fraud, which is worsened by the facts that 1) they don't deliver a physical product, so it's difficult for the merchant to prove that a charge was legit, and 2) some customers will charge back purchases which they regret making, or which a partner disapproves of. ("No, honey, I definitely didn't sign up for that porn site, I'll call the bank right away.")
> Pretty sure credit card companies won't let you "chargeback" stripe clubs as fraud even if it wasn't you.
I'm pretty sure they will.
Very much so. Adult businesses have extremely high rates of friendly fraud, which is worsened by the facts that 1) they don't deliver a physical product, so it's difficult for the merchant to prove that a charge was legit, and 2) some customers will charge back purchases which they regret making, or which a partner disapproves of. ("No, honey, I definitely didn't sign up for that porn site, I'll call the bank right away.")
> Pretty sure credit card companies won't let you "chargeback" stripe clubs as fraud even if it wasn't you.
I'm pretty sure they will.
Sadly the porn industry shot themselves in the foot almost a decade ago trying to scam as much money out of people as possible until VISA and MasterCard stepped in themselves and banned a terrible practice from being accepted.
Remember in 2012 the whole hubbub of "pre-checked cross-sales?"
The act of hiding the checkbox below the fold of the screen and make the visitor think there's nothing more below so they won't uncheck the box that says "Yeah, charge me $1 for this 3 day trial, but also sign me up for all these other programs that will bang my card for $60-120/each"
You'd think you were getting a 3 day trial for a buck but instead you'd be getting a $300-1000 charge on your card.
Remember in 2012 the whole hubbub of "pre-checked cross-sales?"
The act of hiding the checkbox below the fold of the screen and make the visitor think there's nothing more below so they won't uncheck the box that says "Yeah, charge me $1 for this 3 day trial, but also sign me up for all these other programs that will bang my card for $60-120/each"
You'd think you were getting a 3 day trial for a buck but instead you'd be getting a $300-1000 charge on your card.
> You'd think you were getting a 3 day trial for a buck but instead you'd be getting a $300-1000 charge on your card.
The same technique, though not to such an extreme degree, was used to make candidate loans in the last US election.
The same technique, though not to such an extreme degree, was used to make candidate loans in the last US election.
The people that come up with this shit are evil.......
you are not wrong, but it was not every porn site doing that, yet they are all suffering from that practice.
I think it led the porn processors like ccbill to become more diligent about agreements / checking on customers doing such things and making sure they were not hidden if employed.
Sadly it's crap like that that is cited in making it harder / more expensive for small operators to do business, yet from what I gather it's harder to unsubscribe from the NY times than it is multiple porn sites these days.
I wish the exorbitant fees they charge due to higher chargebacks like that were only charged to people who engage in such things - it sucks that people who do a fair above board business are charged extra - it's just an excuse to soak others at this point.
I think it led the porn processors like ccbill to become more diligent about agreements / checking on customers doing such things and making sure they were not hidden if employed.
Sadly it's crap like that that is cited in making it harder / more expensive for small operators to do business, yet from what I gather it's harder to unsubscribe from the NY times than it is multiple porn sites these days.
I wish the exorbitant fees they charge due to higher chargebacks like that were only charged to people who engage in such things - it sucks that people who do a fair above board business are charged extra - it's just an excuse to soak others at this point.
ok that's oddly specific.
"Stripe for vice business" wouldn't work because the payment processors are still beholden to VISA and MasterCard. This company would also have to create a whole new credit card in which majority of people are using.
You'd probably need to create a network of people that accepted physical cash and gave you crypto in return, sort of like localbitcoins.
I guess you could buy a chain of Bureau de Change outlets and have them convert cash to bitcoin, monero etc. I'm surprised this isn't already happening to be honest - they have all the infrastructure and licenses already.
I guess you could buy a chain of Bureau de Change outlets and have them convert cash to bitcoin, monero etc. I'm surprised this isn't already happening to be honest - they have all the infrastructure and licenses already.
I wonder how many would carry the pornocard in their wallet. Perhaps the ViceCard or even FreedomOfSpeechCard.
I doubt ApplePay would support it.
Perhaps a membership service like Costco. Probably someone has tried it, like perhaps a casino chain.
I doubt ApplePay would support it.
Perhaps a membership service like Costco. Probably someone has tried it, like perhaps a casino chain.
I’m sure if you’re a store with a bunch of Karen’s asking if you accept an OF card for payment, you’d probably reach out to OF to figure out how to get that money that just walked out the door…
What are the odds that an OF card would be the only card someone has, though? See for example Dinner's Club.
I guess they’d probably have another card, but one has more money on it than the others?
You have to see how tenuous this is, right?
Isn't that how all payment methods get started? Apple Pay wasn't just randomly accepted, people asked and when the answer was "no," they walked out the door.
Not successfully for several hundred years, no. Bottom-up creation of payment methods isn't a thing. Please take a look at the history of the Diner's Club card, and compare it to Amex.
Apple Pay is widely accepted because of three things, ordered here from least to most important: Apple applying pressure on the processors to accept it, paying them when necessary, and the fact that giant card data breaches like Target and Home Depot meant that the whole market needed to move away from magstripe anyway. People taking grass roots action was not a part of the change in any meaningful way (at least partly because it never happened).
There's this very popular cryptocurrency story that individual people have power in this market. The problem with that narrative is that virtually nobody cares enough this issue because it's just not that important. Sorry.
Apple Pay is widely accepted because of three things, ordered here from least to most important: Apple applying pressure on the processors to accept it, paying them when necessary, and the fact that giant card data breaches like Target and Home Depot meant that the whole market needed to move away from magstripe anyway. People taking grass roots action was not a part of the change in any meaningful way (at least partly because it never happened).
There's this very popular cryptocurrency story that individual people have power in this market. The problem with that narrative is that virtually nobody cares enough this issue because it's just not that important. Sorry.
Interesting! I’d always assumed it was a grassroots thing. Thanks for taking the time to teach me otherwise!
My roommate is one of the risk analysts on the fraud team for a large subprime credit card company. About 45% of credit card transactions from OnlyFans are CC fraud.
Edit: update numbers to be correct
Edit: update numbers to be correct
would you please clarify the type of fraud.
for example, I think a lot of people hear this and assume the fraud is like, caused by an OF model - not delivering what was promised for example..
However seeing your statement, I am thinking it's that much fraud because criminals are getting stolen card / Id details from the darker webs and they are using other people's cards for fun things - and OF is a popular place to blow other people's money.
Maybe it's a mix of both - but I would think it's more the other way.
I remember when there were big numbers of fraud pointed at adult sites back in the day - but the core reason was so many offered $1 trials, and it was a popular way to test if a card number you got was valid / not reported stolen yet - use a cheap porn site.
I saw a (possibly npr?) story a while back saying that many criminals are now using dominoe's pizza to test if (stolen ) cards are good, because it's cheap and they get a bonus free pizza for a friend.
So it's not the pizza place or the porn site that is really encouraging the fraud or creating it.. unless you get into the weeds of they accepted a card without the exact right address and so they are a target for card testers.. that's a different discussion and such.
for example, I think a lot of people hear this and assume the fraud is like, caused by an OF model - not delivering what was promised for example..
However seeing your statement, I am thinking it's that much fraud because criminals are getting stolen card / Id details from the darker webs and they are using other people's cards for fun things - and OF is a popular place to blow other people's money.
Maybe it's a mix of both - but I would think it's more the other way.
I remember when there were big numbers of fraud pointed at adult sites back in the day - but the core reason was so many offered $1 trials, and it was a popular way to test if a card number you got was valid / not reported stolen yet - use a cheap porn site.
I saw a (possibly npr?) story a while back saying that many criminals are now using dominoe's pizza to test if (stolen ) cards are good, because it's cheap and they get a bonus free pizza for a friend.
So it's not the pizza place or the porn site that is really encouraging the fraud or creating it.. unless you get into the weeds of they accepted a card without the exact right address and so they are a target for card testers.. that's a different discussion and such.
Yes. High value virtual content is the best way to launder money, especially if it is private content like shows.
However unless there exist payment rails outside Mastercard or Visa, no one is going to build ”Stripe.” The only way would be Stripe running on crypto, but then how people get crypto in the first place if not by a card?
EDIT: Crypto also lacks chargebacks (so called hard money).
However unless there exist payment rails outside Mastercard or Visa, no one is going to build ”Stripe.” The only way would be Stripe running on crypto, but then how people get crypto in the first place if not by a card?
EDIT: Crypto also lacks chargebacks (so called hard money).
More importantly, cryptocurrency also lacks recurring payments. Most adult sites depend upon income from ongoing subscriptions.
The Sablier protocol (https://sablier.finance/) trustlessly streams crypto/stablecoins on a second/hourly/daily/monthly basis which covers use cases such as subscriptions.
No, that doesn't address the use case for subscriptions. (In fact, I'm struggling to understand why anyone would use it in its current state.) The sender of a Sablier "stream" has to set a fixed start and end time for the stream, and deposit the entire value of the stream up front. None of this makes any sense for a subscription application, where the merchant wants the subscription to recur until cancelled, and the subscriber doesn't want to make a large payment up front.
It doesn’t necessarily lack it, but it’s set up differently via one way payment channels.
> Pretty sure credit card companies won't let you "chargeback" stripe clubs as fraud even if it wasn't you.
Of course you can. If your wallet was stolen and the perp went to the champagne room at a strip club, you would not be liable for it. The strip club knows that as well so the onus is on them to actually check that the ID matches the person and the card.
Of course you can. If your wallet was stolen and the perp went to the champagne room at a strip club, you would not be liable for it. The strip club knows that as well so the onus is on them to actually check that the ID matches the person and the card.
Yes, in Vegas many are checking ID for use of credit card exactly with this reason in mind. It is so common for pickpocket that otherwise they have too many such issues.
> Seems like a business opportunity for someone to build a Stripe for vice businesses.
Well, not really. The whole point is that if you do that, the government will apply soft pressure on you, until you go out of businesses.
Its an end run around of the 1st amendment, basically. A senator doesn't have to make a law, targeting you specifically. They just have to threaten your bank, that they will be punished, sometime down the line, in an unrelated law, and then the bank will, shut you down.
Well, not really. The whole point is that if you do that, the government will apply soft pressure on you, until you go out of businesses.
Its an end run around of the 1st amendment, basically. A senator doesn't have to make a law, targeting you specifically. They just have to threaten your bank, that they will be punished, sometime down the line, in an unrelated law, and then the bank will, shut you down.
> Seems like a business opportunity for someone to build a Stripe for vice businesses.
It seems that was a big part of WireCard's business. Didn't turn out that well. (Though their vice business might've been one of the few parts that actually made some money...)
It seems that was a big part of WireCard's business. Didn't turn out that well. (Though their vice business might've been one of the few parts that actually made some money...)
Absolutely higher fraud and chargeback rates.
> Everyone remembers what happened to Joe Nacchio
Everyone paying attention. Most people have never heard of him, and don't know that the USG regularly exercises huge power against private enterprise in this way.
Everyone paying attention. Most people have never heard of him, and don't know that the USG regularly exercises huge power against private enterprise in this way.
The payment processors told him that? Which ones? I've worked for several and the reason we charged porn vendors so much was because of fraud and a staggeringly high chargeback rate.
Which congresspeople were told that payment processors were "doing something about vice"? How long ago was this?
Which congresspeople were told that payment processors were "doing something about vice"? How long ago was this?
Adult content usually has a high charge back rate. “What? How did this get here? My card must’ve been stolen” when the spouse sees the statement.
Also Onlyfans willfully supported a scammy business model by allowing people to sell content without any preview whatsoever and cash out quickly. What would then happen was that famous women would open an Onlyfans, lie about having nudes on there, tell their fans to unlock the "nudes" for a price, fan unlocks only to discover that the woman was indeed nude but strategically covering all the good stuff. By the time complaints were being lodged the creator had already cashed out. Onlyfans tried to slow down the cashouts but the creators still had a leg to stand on since they technically didn't lie about what they were selling
Interesting. Yeah I would love to know what percentage of charge backs are a result of that vs stolen cards. It seems like adult entertainment has two significant sources of fraud then. A couple of years ago Visa clamped down pretty hard on "high risk verticals" and the threshold of charge backs they need to maintain. See:
https://directpaynet.com/new-visa-rules-dating-adult-info-pr...
https://directpaynet.com/new-visa-rules-dating-adult-info-pr...
Don't chargebacks go to the merchant anyway? Why would the payment processor care?
They still have to deal with it. For example, a previous company I worked at valued every customer service call at ~$13. If it was a <$10 problem we would simply offer to refund the customer in full online, no questions asked.
Wouldn't that only affect the issuing bank, rather than the card processor? The card processor would just process a chargeback like any other CC transaction.
So I could see why issuing banks may not want to support adult content, but then there could be a porn friendly issuing bank that may charge higher fees or something.
So I could see why issuing banks may not want to support adult content, but then there could be a porn friendly issuing bank that may charge higher fees or something.
That's close to the average I've seen for several European banks, insurances and telcos in costs per call: 10 to 12 euros, which is 11.6 to 14 USD
[deleted]
IDEA: Master/Slave-Card, available in Black or Brown just chargeable with crypto or cash max amount 300$ no address needed, if lost, your problem.
visa/mc giftcards are a thing.
Really? Never heard of that...maybe a US thing then?
In US you can go to many store and get such a card, pay with cash. Downsides are that some merchant (mostly internet ones) will check and refuse to accept such pre-paid options.
I think they fail at places that depend on recurring subscriptions.. so places like showtime mobile, or any place that says get a trial at X dollars, then pay Y dollars per month.. the processors gets some code returned to them telling them that the card is not able to take on recurring payments - and so many places won't work with them..
but they do work for most non-recurring type things akaik.
I have seen people have them fail - because they quickly try to use them, not knowing that many places require at a zip code to be entered that matches the card.. and if you have not logged into the pre-paid-card's portal and set a zip code.. well fail it will.
but they do work for most non-recurring type things akaik.
I have seen people have them fail - because they quickly try to use them, not knowing that many places require at a zip code to be entered that matches the card.. and if you have not logged into the pre-paid-card's portal and set a zip code.. well fail it will.
I’ve never seen that happen. Though tbh I mostly use them for MS. So I don’t have a ton of experience with actually buying stuff with them.
Prepaid cards including virtual cards are available in Europe..
Cant pay with them on OnlyFans, let alone buying used bath water.
I wouldn’t know, I’m just saying the exist too in Europe. Also many of the multi-chain gift cards are also prepaid payment cards they go through the same payment system it’s much easier to leverage it than to build another one.
Some years ago I interviewed with a company that served as a payment risk processor for high-risk businesses (in short, porn).
The chargeback rate on online porn is huge. As a result, where a traditional payment processor may be 1.3–3.5% depending on the business and the assessed risk, for a high-risk business, the rate can be much much higher. While Onlyfans keeps 20%, I'm guessing that they'd be badly hurt if they had to give half that to their payment processor. I'm sure they've looked at their numbers and they find the non-porn providers are more profitable to them, especially if it means they can lower their processing fees. Booting the porn providers will likely also make it easier to recruit more non-porn providers.
The chargeback rate on online porn is huge. As a result, where a traditional payment processor may be 1.3–3.5% depending on the business and the assessed risk, for a high-risk business, the rate can be much much higher. While Onlyfans keeps 20%, I'm guessing that they'd be badly hurt if they had to give half that to their payment processor. I'm sure they've looked at their numbers and they find the non-porn providers are more profitable to them, especially if it means they can lower their processing fees. Booting the porn providers will likely also make it easier to recruit more non-porn providers.
Another thing that feels uniquely-US to me is chargebacks. I don't even know what's the process for initiating one in Russia. I once wanted to do that (forgot to disable auto-payment for internet in the apartment I rented and since moved from), called my bank, they told me that there's nothing they could do and I have to talk to the merchant to get a refund.
But many comments here imply that chargeback is almost as easy as clicking a button or asking nicely. How's that?
But many comments here imply that chargeback is almost as easy as clicking a button or asking nicely. How's that?
You hop on the phone with the bank and initiate a dispute. They give the merchant a chance to prove that you specifically did indeed make the purchase and/or receive a hard product. If they can't, the money is refunded to your account.
Of course, if you keep on charging back, eventually your bank will give you a polite call to let you know that they're closing out your account. This provides the incentive to be relatively honest about charge backs in addition to the fact that a false charge back is a criminal offense (fraud).
Of course, if you keep on charging back, eventually your bank will give you a polite call to let you know that they're closing out your account. This provides the incentive to be relatively honest about charge backs in addition to the fact that a false charge back is a criminal offense (fraud).
The overall theme here is difference between bank, and visa/Mastercard.
If I have a legitimate charge on my debit/chequing account, I too don't know how to reverse it directly through bank.
But if I pay with visa or Mastercard (actual credit cards), I call the toll free number or go to website and start process and go through it.
Partially it's that highbibterest rates pay for policies and systems and options and insurance. Partially that credit card fraud is common so systems must be easy for consumer. E.g. I had my credit card used by somebody else probably 5 to 6 times over 15 years. They'd call me when they detect fraud,we'd go through list of transactions, and based on quick word over phone they'd cancel all transactions that weren't mine. It's a very different process than banking.
If I have a legitimate charge on my debit/chequing account, I too don't know how to reverse it directly through bank.
But if I pay with visa or Mastercard (actual credit cards), I call the toll free number or go to website and start process and go through it.
Partially it's that highbibterest rates pay for policies and systems and options and insurance. Partially that credit card fraud is common so systems must be easy for consumer. E.g. I had my credit card used by somebody else probably 5 to 6 times over 15 years. They'd call me when they detect fraud,we'd go through list of transactions, and based on quick word over phone they'd cancel all transactions that weren't mine. It's a very different process than banking.
Debit cards have some of the same protections as credit cards. You can dispute a debit charge.
The US has specific legal rights to a chargeback.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_in_Lending_Act
"I forgot to disable automatic billing" probably wouldn't be a valid chargeback, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_in_Lending_Act
"I forgot to disable automatic billing" probably wouldn't be a valid chargeback, though.
In the US, you can't click a button to make a chargeback happen. People are eliding some of the steps or being a bit sloppy with the terminology. A chargeback is something that the bank (or rather, the credit card issuer) does to merchants.
You can log in to your credit card account, click on a transaction, and open a dispute. You have to choose a reason for the dispute. The reason has to be something like, "I was charged for a product, but never received the product."
This just starts the process. The end result may be a chargeback to the merchant.
You can log in to your credit card account, click on a transaction, and open a dispute. You have to choose a reason for the dispute. The reason has to be something like, "I was charged for a product, but never received the product."
This just starts the process. The end result may be a chargeback to the merchant.
>But many comments here imply that chargeback is almost as easy as clicking a button or asking nicely. How's that?
I can log into my banks website and, selecting any payment transaction within the chargeback period, initiate a chargeback claim by just clicking a few buttons.
I can log into my banks website and, selecting any payment transaction within the chargeback period, initiate a chargeback claim by just clicking a few buttons.
Yeah I kept reading about chargebacks in USA so I tried to initiate one on a Visa card in New Zealand and it was a 6-week arduous process requiring a shitload of documentation. It didn't seem worth it for my purposes.
It makes it easy to comply with the Fair Credit Billing Act:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Billing_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Billing_Act
> I'm sure they've looked at their numbers and they find the non-porn providers are more profitable to them, especially if it means they can lower their processing fees.
I highly doubt this. There’s like no way a site that’s known for porn makes more money on what Patreon does. 99.999% impossible.
> Booting the porn providers will likely also make it easier to recruit more non-porn providers.
Pornhub can allow regular content but nobody is going to ditch YouTube, especially PG content creators, because of the name association.
I highly doubt this. There’s like no way a site that’s known for porn makes more money on what Patreon does. 99.999% impossible.
> Booting the porn providers will likely also make it easier to recruit more non-porn providers.
Pornhub can allow regular content but nobody is going to ditch YouTube, especially PG content creators, because of the name association.
Unsure as to whether booting porn will enable any other recruitment of more other providers. OF is synonymous with young girls (over 18 but still young) selling nude picture for everybody under certain age. That is what everybody is thinking when it is mentioned. If you tell somebody under 30 you have OF subscription and bookmarked site yes, but only for watching gardening video, people will think you are joking.
>While Onlyfans keeps 20%,
Where's the rage against a 3rd party platform ripping off the users?
Where's the rage against a 3rd party platform ripping off the users?
Onlyfans isn't a duopoly, unlike iOS/Android.
So, your logic is that because only 2 companies do it, that's a bad thing. Yet when every other company providing a service takes a percentage that makes it okay?
Naw, I think this site has lots of people personally having to pay that 30% cut, but when other people have to pay it they don't care because it's other people.
Naw, I think this site has lots of people personally having to pay that 30% cut, but when other people have to pay it they don't care because it's other people.
If you think about what payment processors actually do, dealing with fraud is one of the main costs. There's a lot of fraud associated with porn related transactions, so it can make financial sense to just drop the entire transaction category.
Probably the reputational risk to them from being associated with porn is not worth whatever OnlyFans brings in.
Payment processors and financial institutions like to use the (IMO mostly political) cover of "AML regulations" to decline service to sex workers and sex worker-adjacent businesses. Prior to the internet and OnlyFans there was at least a tenuous connection: sex work was a cash business and all cash businesses are at "higher" risk for money laundering. Pizza shops, nail salons, car washes, etc. Of course the pizza shops and nail salons and car washes still get to open bank accounts even though they're subject to higher scrutiny behind the scenes.
But that pretext for excluding sex workers from banking and payment processing really falls apart with OnlyFans. These are small, repeated, digital payments that are highly traceable because they're coming from and going to known people. And the existence of the underlying work product is easily verifiable: are the accounts actively posting content or not?
But that pretext for excluding sex workers from banking and payment processing really falls apart with OnlyFans. These are small, repeated, digital payments that are highly traceable because they're coming from and going to known people. And the existence of the underlying work product is easily verifiable: are the accounts actively posting content or not?
Let me remind you that eBay allowed sales of digital products and OTC medication.
For a long time, so they somehow dealt with all the supposed fraud.
Then they grew large enough to tell digital product sellers to fuck off and stepped hard on the medication sellers (pretty sure they banned anything that's more than a supplement).
PayPal did the same, or maybe it was PayPal leading that, they were the same company for a long time.
For a long time, so they somehow dealt with all the supposed fraud.
Then they grew large enough to tell digital product sellers to fuck off and stepped hard on the medication sellers (pretty sure they banned anything that's more than a supplement).
PayPal did the same, or maybe it was PayPal leading that, they were the same company for a long time.
You had (still have?) the same issue with marijuana businesses. Not easy to open a bank account for a marijuana business.
Yes except there's one major legal difference: selling marijuana is (for now) a federal crime and selling naked photos is not. So AML regulations do actually prohibit banks/payment processors from servicing marijuana businesses but they do not prohibit them from servicing OnlyFans.
I would bet money that there is some portion of the content on OnlyFans breaking the law.
Like what? Besides kiddie porn and sex trafficking / forced labor, what could possibly be illegal?
Isn't this site just a bunch of naked girls twerking in front of webcam?
Isn't this site just a bunch of naked girls twerking in front of webcam?
Yeah, exactly. Underage performers, revenge porn, nonconsensual stuff. These are common problems for every other site with adult content so why would they be immune.
I don't know much about OnlyFans, but isn't it mostly solo performances, where the performer is the channel owner? And every viewer is paying?
That would mean you just have to confirm performer, photo ID and bank account all match. And the cost of any manual checks can be funded by your margin on the viewers' payments.
That would mean you just have to confirm performer, photo ID and bank account all match. And the cost of any manual checks can be funded by your margin on the viewers' payments.
I think there is a lot of content which is not solo.
I’m sure you’re right. But the same is probably true for Reddit and YouTube and Amazon but for some reason Visa and MasterCard don’t seem so concerned...
Well, all of them have been forced to curtail some kinds of content in response to outside pressure as well. OnlyFans is just unique in being all-in on this one kind.
I read some more about this and it seems like verification of performers is precisely the bone of contention. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/548279-mastercard-upda...
The issue is sex trafficking not money laundering here.
It's six in one and a half dozen in the other. Banks only care about sex trafficking because sex trafficking is a crime and processing money from criminal activity is... money laundering. But regardless, what's the risk of sex trafficking here? Again, these payments are coming from and going to known parties. In fact, this should be a KYC dream come true. Because of the adult content OnlyFans collects (and in the case of payment recipients, confirms) the name, DOB, and address of everyone buying and selling on the platform.
If human trafficking were the actual risk banks were trying to mitigate here then it would be difficult for any business sector that relies on migrant workers to obtain banking services but I've never heard of an almond grower having trouble opening a bank account.
If human trafficking were the actual risk banks were trying to mitigate here then it would be difficult for any business sector that relies on migrant workers to obtain banking services but I've never heard of an almond grower having trouble opening a bank account.
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.
I suspect they have a lot of models that toe the line of sexual explicitness; but I certainly have the same perception of the site
Why would OnlyFans not simply move to another payment processor then? This all seems a bit strange.
If the party pushing is Visa or Mastercard (of which 'other' processors like Paypal, Venmo, Cashapp are beholden to as well) that would only really leave cryptocurrency, which is a large barrier to taking payments and would likely mean >90% revenue loss anyways.
Reminder that payment processor pressure is what has caused a lot of (legal) art to be pushed off of Patreon[0].
0: https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbqwwj/patreon-suspension-of... (discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17432801 )
Reminder that payment processor pressure is what has caused a lot of (legal) art to be pushed off of Patreon[0].
0: https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbqwwj/patreon-suspension-of... (discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17432801 )
To add:
Bans some forms of anime art: https://www.dailydot.com/irl/patreon-anime-porn-ban/
Banning for activity/art outside of art hosted on Patreon: https://www.dailydot.com/irl/patreon-gay-hypnosis-artists/
(articles may contain nsfw imagery)
Bans some forms of anime art: https://www.dailydot.com/irl/patreon-anime-porn-ban/
Banning for activity/art outside of art hosted on Patreon: https://www.dailydot.com/irl/patreon-gay-hypnosis-artists/
(articles may contain nsfw imagery)
Strike and Coinbase prohibit any use in connection with adult services in their ToS. Building/maintaining fiat onramps at scale is hard.
It's not so easy. The obvious candidates all ban adult content, and the ones used by the porn industry are either owned by the same or take cuts that make the AppStore look reasonable.
Taking a 30% cut doesn’t seem that bad compared to the alternative. Why lose 90% of your revenue and all your profit just to not give a 30 or 40% cut to shitty middle man?
Unless Onlyfans actually has some decent traction outside sexual stuff. I find that hard to believe. If photos are still allowed, that’s something. But still.
Maybe I’m completely misinformed though!
Unless Onlyfans actually has some decent traction outside sexual stuff. I find that hard to believe. If photos are still allowed, that’s something. But still.
Maybe I’m completely misinformed though!
From what I understand OnlyFans has essentially no other product except for this type of content though. So I would have assumed negotiating with one of these processors for a somewhat more reasonable contract despite higher fees would still be more lucrative than giving up what seems to be their core business and revenue stream.
They could set up their own payment processor (unless it's really Visa or Mastercard pushing this).
Not a reputation thing, unless that's changed lately. You can use credit cards for all kinds of porn and various shady things, they don't care.
For decades, the specific issue was with the huge chargeback/fraud rates associated with online porn.
- People paying for porn with stolen cards
- Or, more frequently, people disputing the charges when their wives see the credit card statements and get mad, so they claim the card was stolen etc.
For decades, the specific issue was with the huge chargeback/fraud rates associated with online porn.
- People paying for porn with stolen cards
- Or, more frequently, people disputing the charges when their wives see the credit card statements and get mad, so they claim the card was stolen etc.
not sure why you're getting downvoted, this is textually what is said
I think sometimes people downvote you for stating some fact that they think shouldn't be true. No big deal.
I just ignore all downvotes that don't give some sort of rebuttal. I just assume I pissed someone off by stating fact they didn't like otherwise. In fact, I think that would be an excellent feature - you can't downvote without an honest reply.
I think that is the exact opposite of what a downvote should be for: comments which aren't even worth replying to.
Both types exist, I'd say.
Ignore a few downvotes in the first hour or so, they're likely to be compensated with upvotes if you're saying anything substantial.
Because it is a high risk area, just like gambling
Here is the story https://www.xbiz.com/news/258606/heres-what-the-new-masterca...
But sounds like OnlyFans could have complied with verification requirements, like PornHub had done?
But sounds like OnlyFans could have complied with verification requirements, like PornHub had done?
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”??
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”??
Remember this next time people start pushing going cashless.
Doing so means that a third party is involved in every transaction you make, and that someone else will always have veto power over your commercial transactions.
Doing so means that a third party is involved in every transaction you make, and that someone else will always have veto power over your commercial transactions.
That’s an excellent point.
Having an electronic alternative to cash would be amazing, but so far there’s nothing close to it with respect to privacy and freedom.
Having an electronic alternative to cash would be amazing, but so far there’s nothing close to it with respect to privacy and freedom.
Is this satire going over my head?
Crypto will eventually democratize business transactions but it will take some time and it will not be without increased fraud.
Mass adoption of crypto will come with the same problem - middlemen slipping in under the guise of efficiency and convenience, who will then be compelled to cooperate with big brother.
The big difference is that those middlemen won't be required for payments to function so OnlyFans could ignore them and take payments directly.
PayPal and other pseudo currencies already did, for a while. You bought virtual currency (which PayPal was at first, and so was e-gold, webmoney, etc) and traded that for anything you could.
Then PayPal wanted to go big, other virtual currencies were caught in fraud scandals of their own (not their users'), people just lost trust and interest when card processing became more common.
Some are still around but sellers can't be arsed to use them. Maybe they will, once again.
Then PayPal wanted to go big, other virtual currencies were caught in fraud scandals of their own (not their users'), people just lost trust and interest when card processing became more common.
Some are still around but sellers can't be arsed to use them. Maybe they will, once again.
What type of fraud? It seems to me that it would make it basically impossible to defraud a merchant with a stolen payment method (much like cash). Do you mean merchants defrauding their customers?
With ~90% of it currently being used for speculation or illegal activity, I don't see it getting real traction.
You're assuming the government won't just ban it entirely.
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
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
[deleted]
Why should there be? It seems absurd to MANDATE anyone participate in the sex trade. There are payment processors who specialize in adult content.
We mandate that some companies participate in the sex trade, at least to the extent that payment processors can be considered to be participating.
The electrical company is mandated to provide power to Onlyfans' datacenters, so long as they are paying for the service.
Also there's basically only four payment processors: Visa, Mastercard, Discover and Amex. None of them specialize in adult business. There are downstream processors along the lines of PayPal and Stripe, and some of them specialize in adult business, but they're entirely beholden to the big four.
The electrical company is mandated to provide power to Onlyfans' datacenters, so long as they are paying for the service.
Also there's basically only four payment processors: Visa, Mastercard, Discover and Amex. None of them specialize in adult business. There are downstream processors along the lines of PayPal and Stripe, and some of them specialize in adult business, but they're entirely beholden to the big four.
I think this is different. If the customer is unhappy with the service provided, their dispute has nothing to do with the electrical company, nor are they going to claw back payments to them.
If the problem is that customers are contesting payments or other fraud-related issues, the standard remedy is to bump fees, not revoke service.
At the mercy of Visa and MasterCard, I would guess. Doesn't OnlyFans work with CCBill, who exclusively work with adult content providers?
More info is needed to conclude, but it wouldn't surprise me if their upstream providers made demands.
More info is needed to conclude, but it wouldn't surprise me if their upstream providers made demands.
I highly doubt they are going through CCBill. They are too expensive at volume. Since they are only charging models 20% I suspect they tried to pretend to not be adult, which they probably weren't in the beginning. But not it is almost all adult and CC processors know that and want their higher cut.
There is this from January, where MasterCard wanted sellers of adult content to have more stringent verification of the age and consent of performers in the wake of the PornHub scandal, which I’ve seen people speculating may be related: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/548279-mastercard-upda...
These aren’t explicitly linked in the story but it would make sense IMO
These aren’t explicitly linked in the story but it would make sense IMO
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.
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".
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".
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).
I think they would have a case, because you still owe them a debt. But then after you lose the case you can pay in cash. Just how I understand it, could be wrong. Doesn't change your point though.
I think they would have a case, because you still owe them a debt. But then after you lose the case you can pay in cash. Just how I understand it, could be wrong. Doesn't change your point though.
How could they operate no-cash businesses if this were true? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/16/fac...
From the Treasury website:
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.
~
The important distinction is payment for goods or services vs payment for a debt. Dine-in restaurants work on debt (you eat the food then pay for it), but grocery stores work on payment for goods (you get the food and pay for it in one transaction).
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.
~
The important distinction is payment for goods or services vs payment for a debt. Dine-in restaurants work on debt (you eat the food then pay for it), but grocery stores work on payment for goods (you get the food and pay for it in one transaction).
I don't think it's accurate to say restaurants are extending credit to their customers. If you walk out without paying, it's theft, not defaulting on a loan.
Let's say you had a business that only accepted pokemon cards as payment. One of your customers does not pay their bill, so you take them to small claims court. The judge is going to rule that they pay you the value of the card, because debts are settled with money.
I don’t see that that’s relevant if you may be charged with a criminal offense for doing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dine_and_dash
I don't know. I'm probably wrong.
But cash is illegal!
If you try to pay a $10K debt in cash, it will likely be seized for no reason whatsoever, on suspicion of criminal activity.
If you try to pay a $10K debt in cash, it will likely be seized for no reason whatsoever, on suspicion of criminal activity.
The way to avoid this if you want to really pay in cash is to order the cash from your bank and have an armored car service transport it for you. There is just little point since that's more expensive than a check or ACH transfer.
And yes Civil Asset Forfeiture is pure evil, I agree.
And yes Civil Asset Forfeiture is pure evil, I agree.
Unless you are paying it to your local tax office, of course.
There is no financial neutrality requirement, but perhaps there should be.
Also, that quote on the dollar has nothing to do with your argument. You seem to be projecting a layperson’s interpretation of those words instead of the relevant jurisprudence.
Also, that quote on the dollar has nothing to do with your argument. You seem to be projecting a layperson’s interpretation of those words instead of the relevant jurisprudence.
The choice of wording -- specifically "debt" -- is deliberate and meaningful.
If I owe you $5, you have to accept my $5 bill as legal tender
But if I want to buy something from your store that doesn't mean you have to accept my $5 bill - that's not a debt
If I owe you $5, you have to accept my $5 bill as legal tender
But if I want to buy something from your store that doesn't mean you have to accept my $5 bill - that's not a debt
That's not what that means.
https://www.quora.com/On-every-US-dollar-bill-the-message-Th...
https://www.quora.com/On-every-US-dollar-bill-the-message-Th...
The comment you linked to doesn’t address the point I made.
My point was that you can spend your cash wherever you want, in whatever way the seller will accept.
My point was not that sellers ought to be forced to accept bags of pennies.
My point was that you can spend your cash wherever you want, in whatever way the seller will accept.
My point was not that sellers ought to be forced to accept bags of pennies.
That has nothing at all to do with payment processing.
[deleted]
Why should internet providers be mandated to participate in the "sex trade" by allowing immoral bits to flow over their wires?
morality is relative.... next stop it is strip clubs, then hooters being banned?
Payment processors provide a utility. They should have the right not to process illegal transactions and illegal activities. But as long as the activity is legal, it shouldn't be up to them to police morality.
They should be treated like utilities. If we go down this path, the city's water and electric utilities can decide to shut down the new hooters, because it is obscene and against god (according to conservaties), or it uses women and is an oppressor (according to some liberals).
Utilities shouldn't be involved in morality policing.
Payment processors provide a utility. They should have the right not to process illegal transactions and illegal activities. But as long as the activity is legal, it shouldn't be up to them to police morality.
They should be treated like utilities. If we go down this path, the city's water and electric utilities can decide to shut down the new hooters, because it is obscene and against god (according to conservaties), or it uses women and is an oppressor (according to some liberals).
Utilities shouldn't be involved in morality policing.
There are a couple practical reasons why they wouldn't want to: high risk of fraud or chargebacks and difficulty keeping on top of content that veers into illegality spring to mind immediately.
Like paying for abortions or gay weddings in certain states? Buying cannabis from somebody on the street instead of somebody in a store 6 months later? Promoting unions depending on the decade? Letting “trespassing” black people buy coffee in shops that banned them in the 60s? Making breaking the law impossible is dangerous
This is a very legitimate concern -- payment processors could start enforcing that kind of thing based on morality.
However, unless something has changed lately, for decades the issue with adult content + online payment processors is not morality related. It's because of the high fraud/chargeback rates associated with online porn transactions.
Unless it's SESTA/FOSTA related, but I don't think anything's changed on that front for a while.
However, unless something has changed lately, for decades the issue with adult content + online payment processors is not morality related. It's because of the high fraud/chargeback rates associated with online porn transactions.
Unless it's SESTA/FOSTA related, but I don't think anything's changed on that front for a while.
> Like paying for abortions or gay weddings in certain states?
These do not have the high rates of chargeback that adult content does.
These do not have the high rates of chargeback that adult content does.
I'm not 100% sure what you're getting at but most legal dispensaries require you to pay cash.
They can simply charge more based on a mathematically provable risk of fraud/chargebacks. We can regulate that to make it fair/transparent, and also regulate that payment processors must not discriminate against any activity that is legal.
The legal part seems to be the issue; Mastercard wants more stringent checks on the age of performers. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/548279-mastercard-upda...
Yeah, this is a fair point. I think it would make sense to require them to offer services, but let them charge a rate that allows them to make similar margins as on other business.
Why should it require specialization at all besides that laws pushed by religious conservatives to advance puritan ideals demand it? Don't be a doctor if you aren't willing to help your patient exercise their right to choose and don't be a payment processor if you're not willing to process payments in a neutral fashion. It's rediculous that at a time when equity and #metoo is all the rage that no one is talking about inequity in the law in the form of legal sandbags.
That is called democracy and yes there are a lot of things that are not sold.
General public agrees that explicit material is bad.
Right now we have in Poland shops closed each Sunday - it is annoying for me. Selling alcohol in Norway is heavily restricted and I see more and more restrictions on alcohol sales in Poland.
Explicit material is tied a lot to money laundering, there is also a lot of scams tied to it and lots of stolen cards are used to pay for explicit material. It is huge cost for payment providers, all the laws for anti-laundering trump any "payment neutrality".
If you want to see naked ladies go to "a place" and risk on your own, pay with cash.
General public agrees that explicit material is bad.
Right now we have in Poland shops closed each Sunday - it is annoying for me. Selling alcohol in Norway is heavily restricted and I see more and more restrictions on alcohol sales in Poland.
Explicit material is tied a lot to money laundering, there is also a lot of scams tied to it and lots of stolen cards are used to pay for explicit material. It is huge cost for payment providers, all the laws for anti-laundering trump any "payment neutrality".
If you want to see naked ladies go to "a place" and risk on your own, pay with cash.
Payment networks should operate according to laws and regulations, not reputation and public opinion. Would you want your electricity turned off because someone did not like who you were or what you believe? That is a road to tyranny.
I agree, but the law does have to consider the very different risk profile some customers present. As has been pointed out, adult businesses have to deal with shame and a lot of fraudulent chargebacks. The reality is that they are much more expensive to service.
No business operates this way.
Given that payment processors are an oligopoly, and it's incredibly difficult to build another Visa or MasterCard, they should be regulated as utilities (or at the very least, similarly to telecom providers), and be required to be content-neutral.
Just like Comcast can't tell me I can't download porn, Visa shouldn't be able to tell me I can't buy it, either.
Just like Comcast can't tell me I can't download porn, Visa shouldn't be able to tell me I can't buy it, either.
[deleted]
Slippery slope argument.
So you are going to run naked in the city center because public opinion about this does not match what you want.
So you are going to run naked in the city center because public opinion about this does not match what you want.
[deleted]
I think you and @toomuchtodo are talking about different things.
Laws, democratic or otherwise, can indeed constrain what payment providers will allow themselves to be used for.
Public opinion short of law should not be able to add further constraints.
IMO the question of “what should Visa and MasterCard be allowed to restrict?” is the same category of question as “what category of app should Apple and Google be allowed to restrict?”
Laws, democratic or otherwise, can indeed constrain what payment providers will allow themselves to be used for.
Public opinion short of law should not be able to add further constraints.
IMO the question of “what should Visa and MasterCard be allowed to restrict?” is the same category of question as “what category of app should Apple and Google be allowed to restrict?”
> Public opinion short of law should not be able to add further constraints.
Isn't reputational feedback one of the key enablers of the free market? Unless you want to move to a system that is fully centrally planned and noncompetitive, you'll have reputational differences (read: public opinion) affecting the success of a firm. To the extent that reputation affects a firm's success, the firm will make decisions (including "do we carry this unpopular thing") based on its reputation.
Shall we require all firms to do business with all potential partners, regardless of reputational repercussions, or if the partner has an established history of abuse (say, a contractor who repeatedly under-delivers on contracts)?
Isn't reputational feedback one of the key enablers of the free market? Unless you want to move to a system that is fully centrally planned and noncompetitive, you'll have reputational differences (read: public opinion) affecting the success of a firm. To the extent that reputation affects a firm's success, the firm will make decisions (including "do we carry this unpopular thing") based on its reputation.
Shall we require all firms to do business with all potential partners, regardless of reputational repercussions, or if the partner has an established history of abuse (say, a contractor who repeatedly under-delivers on contracts)?
I see your point, but I was thinking specifically of the case where public opinion influences the behaviour of monopolies and duopolies. If there were e.g. a thousand payment providers each with 0.05-0.15% market shares, I’d agree with the free market and reputation approach; but as the number of important players gets smaller, public opinion becomes more like an plutocracy (because one dollar is one vote) without any of the institutional self-regulation governments develop out of necessity.
No, this is dictated by a vocal minority of puritans, don't drag "democracy" into this
And when the general public agrees cash is bad? After all you can buy anything with digital methods nowadays. Cash is only for criminals.
>General public agrees that explicit material is bad
I don’t think that’s true when asked anonymously.
I don’t think that’s true when asked anonymously.
Which general public? This stuff varies by jurisdiction.
You would think that it would be profitable enough for them to become their own bank and processor if no one else would. This right here tells me they knew they couldn't. Why? Who is telling them no? How can we live in a place where LEGAL businesses are purposefully excluded from the market?
I think they should start taking Bitcoin or Monero. Fuck MasterCard and whoever dictates what they do. If you are going to be forced into bankruptcy, at least do it in style.
I think they should start taking Bitcoin or Monero. Fuck MasterCard and whoever dictates what they do. If you are going to be forced into bankruptcy, at least do it in style.
>You would think that it would be profitable enough for them to become their own bank and processor if no one else wou
Or just buy a bank. Surely they could have raised the capital.
Or just buy a bank. Surely they could have raised the capital.
The requirements from MasterCard are here and not impossible to comply https://mobile.twitter.com/moo9000/status/142844966253361972...
It may be so, but they won't need payment processors once they don't have payments, or users.
and possibly FOSTA-SESTA too
We really need an alternative to big payment processors like Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, Stripe, etc. Moving money around is so fundamental to basic living that it shouldn't be solely possible through duopolies or oligopolies, and it is morally and ethically unacceptable that these companies seek to impost their own morals and politics upon others who are voluntarily transacting with each other. We've known this was a problem for a LONG time now, going back to when the credit card companies colluded to institute a payment blockade against Wikileaks over 10 years ago (https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/12/07/visa-m...). I'm disappointed we aren't in a better place yet. We need renewed antitrust legislation to take control of big tech and payment processors. They are as influential as governments, and cannot be allowed to discriminate, just like your water utility cannot discriminate against you based on your personal life or politics.
This seems incredibly odd given that OnlyFan's primary payment processor is CCBill, a massive payment processor focused solely on adult content.
Here is opportunity #3928 for Stripe to step in and earn their valuation and flex their payment muscle and allow adult payments.
Here is opportunity #3928 for Stripe to step in and earn their valuation and flex their payment muscle and allow adult payments.
Stripe's hands are tied - they need financial services to operate and banks (and CC processors) are the ones pushing down these puritanical values.
Could be wrong, but I think it's less puritanical, and more that transactions with these types of vendors are overwhelmingly fraudulent and charged-back. It's a big liability for the processors.
It could also be because, as suggested in another comment[1], banks are getting regulated in a way that the payment processors simply don't want to deal with.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28238003
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28238003
[deleted]
This is a common reason that’s given, but I haven’t seen any proof. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is surprisingly overblown and the industry doesn’t actually have that bad a problem with charge backs
Chargebacks and fraud are a massive issue for every ecommerce business
I wouldn't call it a "massive issue". If you have a reputable ecom business your rates of chargeback and fraud should be quite a bit under 1%. Adult businesses however can have triple or even greater than that.
If you can't absorb 0.5% in loss, then you shouldn't be in ecommerce. Same thing as being in bricks and mortar, if you can't absorb shoplifting you shouldn't be in business.
If you can't absorb 0.5% in loss, then you shouldn't be in ecommerce. Same thing as being in bricks and mortar, if you can't absorb shoplifting you shouldn't be in business.
Not relevant in this case, but for low margin physical goods the math can be much worse. You're out the cost of the good, the taxes and fees associated, the margin, and the chargeback fee. For food delivery middlemen, for example, it's a really rough game
Shouldn’t Stripe be big enough at this point to have some leverage as a customer?
[deleted]
It's very likely the pressure is coming from Visa and MasterCard (especially MC) rather than at the level of CCbill.
This doesn't make any sense at all. Pick a subscription porn site right now, any one, and go try to sign up. You don't have to follow through, just get to the payment page and don't click submit. They all take Visa and MasterCard.
CCbill itself couldn't exist if Visa and MasterCard didn't let it process payments for porn.
CCbill itself couldn't exist if Visa and MasterCard didn't let it process payments for porn.
The porn industry is regulated, believe it or not. What happens is that financial system support is withdrawn from places that provide avenues for exploitation of children or victims of human traffickers. I expect OF didn't think they could meet recordkeeping requirements or assume the liabilities of doing so incorrectly.
It's not about a flat yes/no to porn, it's about the level of arbitrary rules, shifting policies, banned keywords etc etc that Mastercard inflict on any businesses that include adult content, that make operating a business nearly impossible.
These rules are getting worse because MC's head has decided to give in to the scaremongering by far right religious group Exodus Cry.
These rules are getting worse because MC's head has decided to give in to the scaremongering by far right religious group Exodus Cry.
Yeah exactly. PornHub is the exception, not the rule - they were taking card payments right up until the recent news coverage about illegal content.
How so?
Because CCbill can do nothing if MasterCard puts pressure on them, and MasterCard are putting pressure on adult content businesses and have been for years.
I guess I just don't understand how payment processing works in this domain: are you saying MasterCard is basically saying that their credit cards cannot be used to purchase adult services such as these?
Mastercard (and Visa and AmEx and Discover) do not want their networks to be used by merchants selling pornography.
I would think the only reason is the chargeback/fraud rates are too high in this type of business, as well as not wanting to be involved in a business where there may be a high chance of illegal content.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/mastercar...
>The banks will now have to ensure that sellers require “clear, unambiguous and documented consent” in adult content, the payments network said in a blog post Wednesday. The firms will also be required to ensure websites document the age and verify the identity of anyone depicted in pictures and videos as well as those uploading the content.
>“The banks that connect merchants to our network will need to certify that the seller of adult content has effective controls in place to monitor, block and, where necessary, take down all illegal content,” John Verdeschi, Mastercard’s senior vice president of customer engagement and performance, said in the post.
Allowing merchants to sell pornography is probably not worth the hassle for the card networks.
I would think the only reason is the chargeback/fraud rates are too high in this type of business, as well as not wanting to be involved in a business where there may be a high chance of illegal content.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-14/mastercar...
>The banks will now have to ensure that sellers require “clear, unambiguous and documented consent” in adult content, the payments network said in a blog post Wednesday. The firms will also be required to ensure websites document the age and verify the identity of anyone depicted in pictures and videos as well as those uploading the content.
>“The banks that connect merchants to our network will need to certify that the seller of adult content has effective controls in place to monitor, block and, where necessary, take down all illegal content,” John Verdeschi, Mastercard’s senior vice president of customer engagement and performance, said in the post.
Allowing merchants to sell pornography is probably not worth the hassle for the card networks.
Sounds like MasterCard is in fact fine with merchants selling pornography, but the merchants aren't willing to do so on MasterCard's extremely reasonable terms.
Lol, such as the people involved can't be dressed as vampires.
"Extremely reasonable"
"Extremely reasonable"
Have you got a reference to that? the terms that were quoted in the grandparent comment do seem extremely reasonable:
>The banks will now have to ensure that sellers require “clear, unambiguous and documented consent” in adult content, the payments network said in a blog post Wednesday. The firms will also be required to ensure websites document the age and verify the identity of anyone depicted in pictures and videos as well as those uploading the content.
>“The banks that connect merchants to our network will need to certify that the seller of adult content has effective controls in place to monitor, block and, where necessary, take down all illegal content,” John Verdeschi, Mastercard’s senior vice president of customer engagement and performance, said in the post.
The thing I don't understand is if those quoted terms above are the rules that onlyfans is falling foul of, then wouldn't it be easier to build a tracked system for documenting consent e.t.c. rather than banning things.
That would seem like a better strategy for OnlyFans since it seems like their entire business model will be in jeopardy without this.
I wonder if they want to do this, and then turn around and say "we've listened to the community and we're gonna integrate this consent system instead" so it won't be treated so negatively or something?
>The banks will now have to ensure that sellers require “clear, unambiguous and documented consent” in adult content, the payments network said in a blog post Wednesday. The firms will also be required to ensure websites document the age and verify the identity of anyone depicted in pictures and videos as well as those uploading the content.
>“The banks that connect merchants to our network will need to certify that the seller of adult content has effective controls in place to monitor, block and, where necessary, take down all illegal content,” John Verdeschi, Mastercard’s senior vice president of customer engagement and performance, said in the post.
The thing I don't understand is if those quoted terms above are the rules that onlyfans is falling foul of, then wouldn't it be easier to build a tracked system for documenting consent e.t.c. rather than banning things.
That would seem like a better strategy for OnlyFans since it seems like their entire business model will be in jeopardy without this.
I wonder if they want to do this, and then turn around and say "we've listened to the community and we're gonna integrate this consent system instead" so it won't be treated so negatively or something?
The grandparent comment is a tiny fragment of the actual rules. Mastercard's BRAM document is not publicly available I believe.
I'm bothered that more people aren't upset about 2 payment providers effectively controlling all non-cash commerce.
I assume we'll wake up a few years from now and say "oh, yeah, probably wasn't a good idea to let private companies get this powerful". Or maybe not.
I assume we'll wake up a few years from now and say "oh, yeah, probably wasn't a good idea to let private companies get this powerful". Or maybe not.
I am upset, but not at the private companies. I am upset at politicians for not getting the ball rolling on an electronic payment method that works like cash in the interest of its citizens.
They did the opposite: they regulated into oblivion a new, non-state technology that could obsolete the current backwards system.
Actually it was the historical excuse. But today with 3DS2, etc. the fraud/complains rates are very very small. (I have had zero in years.)
I suspect that their aversion to adult services payments might be based less on moral qualms than on elevated levels of chargebacks with said services.
"Why, honey! I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA why there is a charge for a Swedish Penis Pump on our Credit Card bill. An evil hacker must have gotten ahold of my card. I shall have the charges reversed at once!", etc.
"Why, honey! I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA why there is a charge for a Swedish Penis Pump on our Credit Card bill. An evil hacker must have gotten ahold of my card. I shall have the charges reversed at once!", etc.
> I suspect that their aversion to adult services payments might be based less on moral qualms than on elevated levels of chargebacks with said services.
Mastercard demands a lot of keyword blocks that are pretty definitely too obscure to be chargeback related.
Mastercard demands a lot of keyword blocks that are pretty definitely too obscure to be chargeback related.
Swedish penis pump?
I'm afraid I'm dating myself a bit here with my cultural references: https://youtu.be/Yh6kbQnOAg4?t=35
MasterCard has two customers: card issuers (banks, usually) and merchants (through payment processors like CCBill, usually). MasterCard is saying that CCBill will lose access to the MasterCard payment network if they serve customers dealing in sexually explicit content.
[deleted]
Yes. The same happened to Pornhub too.
Personally, I would prefer if OnlyFans didn't exist. I think that is a nicer world.
This makes me think of Operation Choke Point. I understand payment processors need to limit fraud and risk, but at what point do they get to determine what a legal business does? I understand the mental gymnastics involved to think a private business gets to choose who they do business with, but when there are only a handful of businesses doing the processing what then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
A reason governments like monopolies - they centralize control. This applies to many industries: telecom, cellphones, social media, etc.
[deleted]
Does anyone else here feel the Onlyfans phenomenon is just exploiting sad lonely men who’d be better off leaving the house, doing some exercise and trying to eat healthier and build their IRL social networks?
This whole cam-girls making a fortune this way seems somehow more dishonest than normal porn to me, maybe because it’s about these guys (who can never have relationships with these women) building a personal and intimate relationship as one of her “fans”. I almost see this as being like gambling where people need to acknowledge maybe how powerful sex is and being a technology that should be regulated similarly.
I wonder if nobody calls out this exploitation because society keeps suggesting that all men are privileged, which is definitely not true for at least 60% of the male population.
Anyway I’ll probably get downvoted for this but these double standards have been irritating me for a while :-)
This whole cam-girls making a fortune this way seems somehow more dishonest than normal porn to me, maybe because it’s about these guys (who can never have relationships with these women) building a personal and intimate relationship as one of her “fans”. I almost see this as being like gambling where people need to acknowledge maybe how powerful sex is and being a technology that should be regulated similarly.
I wonder if nobody calls out this exploitation because society keeps suggesting that all men are privileged, which is definitely not true for at least 60% of the male population.
Anyway I’ll probably get downvoted for this but these double standards have been irritating me for a while :-)
Society is incredibly gynocentric. Few journalists have any interest in how the dating apps exploit lonely men either (by upselling them boosts, superlikes, gold, platinum, and other memberships that the platforms know won't do much to help the average guy on there).
Male mental health is ignored a lot and it's sad.
Male mental health is ignored a lot and it's sad.
> Male mental health is ignored a lot and it's sad.
Until it's dangerous. Some intervention between sad and shooter would serve society well.
Until it's dangerous. Some intervention between sad and shooter would serve society well.
I suspect the economics of OnlyFans is similar to the economics of gambling, loot boxes, and heroin. 20% of the users are generating 80% of the revenue. People can form an unhealthy relationship to anything, but there’s probably a lot of people getting real enjoyment out of OnlyFans without it causing personal problems.
Edit: as has been pointed out, I’ve misrepresented the parent comment. It’s late here, my apologies.
There seem to be a lot of assumptions here that I don’t agree with. So perhaps this comment isn’t for me, in which case feel free to ignore the following.
People seem to add so many values into the mix when it comes to sex work. If these old lonely people paid carers to visit them at home, would that be somehow different? Are these old lonely people somehow exploited because there is sex involved? If they cannot make rational choices because sex is involved then I’d say that is the problem.
Also, where does being able to “have” someone figure into any of this? There is no ‘you must be at least this hot to enter’ scale, people get together for all kinds of reasons. Plus, “have” sounds a lot like possession of someone, which I think we all think is bad? Right?
I think there are a lot of values encoded in the above comment, but I also know it wasn’t intended negatively.
There seem to be a lot of assumptions here that I don’t agree with. So perhaps this comment isn’t for me, in which case feel free to ignore the following.
People seem to add so many values into the mix when it comes to sex work. If these old lonely people paid carers to visit them at home, would that be somehow different? Are these old lonely people somehow exploited because there is sex involved? If they cannot make rational choices because sex is involved then I’d say that is the problem.
Also, where does being able to “have” someone figure into any of this? There is no ‘you must be at least this hot to enter’ scale, people get together for all kinds of reasons. Plus, “have” sounds a lot like possession of someone, which I think we all think is bad? Right?
I think there are a lot of values encoded in the above comment, but I also know it wasn’t intended negatively.
1. I didn’t say old, maybe you misread?
2. I think I’m suggesting some men (the most obsessive and biggest spenders?) would use onlyfans instead of having a relationship. I’m not saying it’s right that a proportion of men become obsessive but it happens right?
3. I’d say a lot of men don’t make rational choices about sex.
2. I think I’m suggesting some men (the most obsessive and biggest spenders?) would use onlyfans instead of having a relationship. I’m not saying it’s right that a proportion of men become obsessive but it happens right?
3. I’d say a lot of men don’t make rational choices about sex.
1. That’s embarrassing, you’re absolutely right
2 & 3. I agree that a lot of men don’t think rationally about sex, and I think that has various societal causes. But I also think that is the problem here, and that possible obsessive OF use is one of the more minor symptoms.
2 & 3. I agree that a lot of men don’t think rationally about sex, and I think that has various societal causes. But I also think that is the problem here, and that possible obsessive OF use is one of the more minor symptoms.
>a lot of men don’t think rationally about sex, and I think that has various societal causes
Really? I don't think so. My understanding is that sexual activity (or lack thereof) affects hormonal balance and that in turn affects mood. To make a very blunt example, if someone isn't getting any and the fake interaction provided by OF makes them feel better, do we really need to look for a societal explanation? If I give you a painful but harmless electric shock and you try desperately to get away, do I need to posit that it's because you've been culturally conditioned to be afraid of electric shocks?
Really? I don't think so. My understanding is that sexual activity (or lack thereof) affects hormonal balance and that in turn affects mood. To make a very blunt example, if someone isn't getting any and the fake interaction provided by OF makes them feel better, do we really need to look for a societal explanation? If I give you a painful but harmless electric shock and you try desperately to get away, do I need to posit that it's because you've been culturally conditioned to be afraid of electric shocks?
Eating McDonald’s makes you feel better if you’re hungry but it’s not food.
I didn't say it was a good feel-good, just that that it does make them feel good. I don't think anyone can deny that. If buying content on OF made one feel bad nobody would do it.
It's pretty great if you just buy the burgers though
>where does being able to “have” someone figure into any of this?
The GP said "have relationships with these women", not "have these women".
The GP said "have relationships with these women", not "have these women".
I clearly should have read that comment more closely before getting on my high horse. Apologies.
To be fair I made heavy refinements to it so you may have read a less cogent version, specifically on the relationships thing! Sorry about that!
Ah no problem! :-)
It is at the intersection of pornography and parasocial online relationships (seen in Youtube, Twitch and other influencers), both extremely profitable. Looking at some of the revenue breakdowns the fees to message are just as significant as subscription costs.
On average I don't think it is particularly healthy to replace real social/ sexual relationships with parasocial ones and I think that is the primary use for these services. For the most part they lack real meaningful intimacy which is a significant benefit that real relationships provide. I don't think many who maintain healthy social and romantic relationships are the majority of users of the platform.
On average I don't think it is particularly healthy to replace real social/ sexual relationships with parasocial ones and I think that is the primary use for these services. For the most part they lack real meaningful intimacy which is a significant benefit that real relationships provide. I don't think many who maintain healthy social and romantic relationships are the majority of users of the platform.
Well among other things: way to utterly and entirely ignore the LGBT creators on there who are making money but also creating erotic content for their communities.
It is a correct reading that my comment didn’t make assumptions about those creators or communities. That’s because it was about something else, that I think consuming this kind of porn is particularly bad because it is largely lonely low status men obsessing about and giving money to rich powerful women on OnlyFans. I find it interesting to point out there might be an unfavourable power dynamic here in the opposite way to how it usually occurs within our society.
> rich powerful women on OnlyFans
Are they powerful though? Or rich even? They might have momentary reach like some celebrities and influencers but does that extend to effecting consumer behavior and would advertisers work with them?
Are they powerful though? Or rich even? They might have momentary reach like some celebrities and influencers but does that extend to effecting consumer behavior and would advertisers work with them?
I agree with your general premise it's exploiting loneliness and the clients aren't always engaging in these things in a healthy way (see also, parasocial relationships with streamers, etc). But I'm not sure if there is any targeted regulation that would actually achieve harm reduction. Banning it will just send it underground and make it more dangerous for the participants, and harder for people to seek help. Maybe tax it and then re-invest the proceeds into the mental health?
Clearly you don’t use onlyfans lmao. It’s just porn dude.
It's clearly not "just porn" or it would have no value at all since there is unlimited free content. It seems like the entire value the platform provides is some kind of social interaction with the content creators.
I know a few onlyfans girls and I can tell you it is not just porn. A friend even had one subscriber texting her about how he's trying to stop using it because he knows he's getting unhealthily attached
hm. i think it is "just porn" with just a few performers making money otherwise too. the novelty of the content makes up for the competition from free sites
[deleted]
Patreon made similar decisions about four years ago when they began to tighten their terms for NSFW creators.
https://www.engadget.com/2017-10-27-patreon-adult-content-cr...
Much of the pressure came from payment processing partners and banks, much like is described in this article.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbqwwj/patreon-suspension-of...
It seems like for any crowdsourced funding platform there is a volume cap for NSFW content imposed by the need of those platforms to seek wider audiences and funding sources.
https://www.engadget.com/2017-10-27-patreon-adult-content-cr...
Much of the pressure came from payment processing partners and banks, much like is described in this article.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbqwwj/patreon-suspension-of...
It seems like for any crowdsourced funding platform there is a volume cap for NSFW content imposed by the need of those platforms to seek wider audiences and funding sources.
Patreon went one step further - if you post content against Patreon's rules anywhere else, even if you don't link to it, if Patreon finds out, they'll ask you to stop doing it, and threaten to suspend your account if you keep doing it.
This is why many people who post fetish-y art (even stuff like mind-control kink) moved from Patreon to SubscribeStar. Even erotic roleplay site F-List moved to SubscribeStar.
This is why many people who post fetish-y art (even stuff like mind-control kink) moved from Patreon to SubscribeStar. Even erotic roleplay site F-List moved to SubscribeStar.
Patreon went one step further - if you post content against Patreon's rules anywhere else, even if you don't link to it, if Patreon finds out, they'll ask you to stop doing it, and threaten to suspend your account if you keep doing it.
That sounds outrageous. Is there a link to more info about this policy?
That sounds outrageous. Is there a link to more info about this policy?
The only example I remember was a little less bad, but still pretty bad in my opinion - the artist in question uploaded contra-TOS artwork on his Twitter account, and had a link to his Twitter account from Patreon. However, Patreon's own terms of service state that they look where traffic is coming from to see what kind of things you're funding with the money, and can ban you on that alone:
>Because you are raising funds on Patreon, we may be held accountable for what you do with those funds, so we may also look at what you do with your membership off our platform. As a result when we talk about “On Patreon,” it means the creations you are funding on and through Patreon. When reviewing a page, we look at how creations are shared, where the page is linked to and where the traffic comes from. No matter what happens, we always give creators the opportunity to appeal a decision by contacting us and sending any relevant information they believe was not considered. We may not change our minds, but we will always listen.
From: https://www.patreon.com/en-GB/policy/guidelines
This means that you only need to link to your Patreon, not even link from your Patreon for them to find you objectionabe.
About NSFW creators leaving the platform because of tighter content restrictions on fiction:
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/patreon-hypnosis-porn-ban-sexua...
https://thenextweb.com/news/patreon-continues-to-crack-down-...
Further, Patreon has communicated to artists that regardless of the age of a fictional character, certain art elements common to anime/manga style drawing (even of adults - "big head, big eyes, short height") may be considered as marking the artwork as a child - and even adding adult-like proportions such as large breasts may not be sufficient to evade Patreon's ban: https://twitter.com/Waero_Re/status/1238408555507539968
Another artist in the thread noted that Patreon decided their content was "violent" because their drawings featured people not smiling during orgasm.
>Because you are raising funds on Patreon, we may be held accountable for what you do with those funds, so we may also look at what you do with your membership off our platform. As a result when we talk about “On Patreon,” it means the creations you are funding on and through Patreon. When reviewing a page, we look at how creations are shared, where the page is linked to and where the traffic comes from. No matter what happens, we always give creators the opportunity to appeal a decision by contacting us and sending any relevant information they believe was not considered. We may not change our minds, but we will always listen.
From: https://www.patreon.com/en-GB/policy/guidelines
This means that you only need to link to your Patreon, not even link from your Patreon for them to find you objectionabe.
About NSFW creators leaving the platform because of tighter content restrictions on fiction:
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/patreon-hypnosis-porn-ban-sexua...
https://thenextweb.com/news/patreon-continues-to-crack-down-...
Further, Patreon has communicated to artists that regardless of the age of a fictional character, certain art elements common to anime/manga style drawing (even of adults - "big head, big eyes, short height") may be considered as marking the artwork as a child - and even adding adult-like proportions such as large breasts may not be sufficient to evade Patreon's ban: https://twitter.com/Waero_Re/status/1238408555507539968
Another artist in the thread noted that Patreon decided their content was "violent" because their drawings featured people not smiling during orgasm.
Because you are raising funds on Patreon, we may be held accountable for what you do with those funds
Wow.
That is not good. Any hypothetical employer could justify any hypothetical abuse using that rationale.
Wow.
That is not good. Any hypothetical employer could justify any hypothetical abuse using that rationale.
Not generally about the policy, but there is one famous instance I'm aware of: Sargon of Akkad. It was something to the effect of him calling the neo-Nazis the N-word on someone else's Youtube channel. To be clear, he used the slur AGAINST the neo-nazis. Then Patreon dumped him. Here's the first Google result I found about it, no guarantees of accuracy.
https://heavy.com/news/2018/12/patreon-sargon-of-akkad-jorda...
https://heavy.com/news/2018/12/patreon-sargon-of-akkad-jorda...
Thinking that's ok cause you're saying it to a bad person is some... high levels of mental gymnastics
There's a very large gap between thinking something is okay and thinking they should not be able to participate in the economy and feed their family.
I assume this will lead to Onlyfans's effective death, much as Tumblr's porn ban seems to have led to, or hastened, its death.
Reddit seems to have resisted whatever calls it must be getting to eliminate porn. So far at least. It will ban or quarantine some heretical ideas, but porn is still there.
Reddit seems to have resisted whatever calls it must be getting to eliminate porn. So far at least. It will ban or quarantine some heretical ideas, but porn is still there.
> Reddit seems to have resisted whatever calls it must be getting to eliminate porn
Not entirely. They purged all NSFW subreddits from the r/all and r/popular meta subreddits. They also go on a purging binge whenever a remotely taboo subreddit makes the news.
Not entirely. They purged all NSFW subreddits from the r/all and r/popular meta subreddits. They also go on a purging binge whenever a remotely taboo subreddit makes the news.
What "remotely taboo" subreddits were banned after making the news? The ones I recall weren't "remotely", they were "extremely". As in, sexual images of children, pictures taken of women without their knowledge, legitimate hate subreddits, ones dedicated to spreading misinformation re: COVID, etc.
r/The_Donald was "quarantined", which is not banning but kinda. The excuse I think was that they did "organized brigading" or something like that.
They were eventually banned after the quarantine.
But they also spent years promoting racism, hate, dangerous conspiracy theories, a neo-nazi rally that resulted in murder, etc. It's hard to look at all of that and think it was just "kind of taboo".
But they also spent years promoting racism, hate, dangerous conspiracy theories, a neo-nazi rally that resulted in murder, etc. It's hard to look at all of that and think it was just "kind of taboo".
I went to the Donald all the time to get a different perspective and if there was racism and hate any worse than /r/politicalhumor or /r/politics I never saw it.
Or your are too ignorant of all the dogwhistles to realize how packed full of racists that place was.
It's equally as possible that some people have become so overly sensitive to the idea of dog whistles that they see them everywhere, even when that wasn't the intent.
I started doing the same after the Pulse Nightclub shooting when literally the rest of Reddit was censoring and preventing discussion because it was almost immediately known the shooter was Muslim. It was the only place you could go for a live thread and actual info.
Over time, the signal to noise was low. But occasionally there was a good point or funny meme.
I can't say for sure I saw any racism worse than anywhere else. I really don't like when people use whatever this is ((( ))) to talk about Jews, saw that a couple times on t_d, but I've definitely also seen it on /r/politics /r/atheism etc
Over time, the signal to noise was low. But occasionally there was a good point or funny meme.
I can't say for sure I saw any racism worse than anywhere else. I really don't like when people use whatever this is ((( ))) to talk about Jews, saw that a couple times on t_d, but I've definitely also seen it on /r/politics /r/atheism etc
> The excuse I think was that they did "organized brigading" or something like that.
It was actually for "violence against police". Hillary Clinton's MediaMatters group found a few comments and made an article on it, this was pushed as far as possible, presenting Reddit with enough cause to "quarantine" them.
The specific anti-police messages were about a congressional walkout in Oregon, and threats to use the police to bring them back for a quorum. A rep replied "Send bachelors". This was the cause and theme of the comments MediaMatters focused on. None were made by mods, their own posts, or even upvoted (under 20 or so). Reddit used this to say the mods there were not removing extremist content, eventually forcing the sub allow only mods "approved" by Reddit Inc. They shuttered the sub before allowing this to happen.
The big joke to is that these anti-police messages were before the summer when it was non-stop ACAB, Kill The Police, etc, in practically every other sub-reddit as part of the riots and protests. Standards applied evenly, Reddit would be left with a knitting and a windsurfing section.
Reddit wanted the_donald gone, end of story. MediaMatters helped, and the reason was surface level deep, but they didn't need some iron clad reason. Interestingly, Reddit removed the "violence against police" reasoning, and replaced it with a more generic cause, as the hypocrisy was warming up.
I researched this shortly after it happened.
It was actually for "violence against police". Hillary Clinton's MediaMatters group found a few comments and made an article on it, this was pushed as far as possible, presenting Reddit with enough cause to "quarantine" them.
The specific anti-police messages were about a congressional walkout in Oregon, and threats to use the police to bring them back for a quorum. A rep replied "Send bachelors". This was the cause and theme of the comments MediaMatters focused on. None were made by mods, their own posts, or even upvoted (under 20 or so). Reddit used this to say the mods there were not removing extremist content, eventually forcing the sub allow only mods "approved" by Reddit Inc. They shuttered the sub before allowing this to happen.
The big joke to is that these anti-police messages were before the summer when it was non-stop ACAB, Kill The Police, etc, in practically every other sub-reddit as part of the riots and protests. Standards applied evenly, Reddit would be left with a knitting and a windsurfing section.
Reddit wanted the_donald gone, end of story. MediaMatters helped, and the reason was surface level deep, but they didn't need some iron clad reason. Interestingly, Reddit removed the "violence against police" reasoning, and replaced it with a more generic cause, as the hypocrisy was warming up.
I researched this shortly after it happened.
This statement feels a bit misleading.
For starters, the comments got considerably more explicit than "Send Bachelors". I'm unfamiliar with this specific event, but researching it, I see:
“none of this gets fixed without people picking up rifles” and “[I have] no problems shooting a cop trying to strip rights from Citizens.”
Perhaps these are what you meant by the "theme", but those seem considerably more explicit, especially for a subreddit already linked to an event that resulted in someone being murdered.
>Reddit wanted the_donald gone
Then why didn't they get rid of them until a year later? The event you're referencing seems to be part of the quarantine, not part of the banning. The banning took place after the mods of the subreddit tried to evade the quarantine by moving to another sub and continued to support breaking Reddit rules.
For starters, the comments got considerably more explicit than "Send Bachelors". I'm unfamiliar with this specific event, but researching it, I see:
“none of this gets fixed without people picking up rifles” and “[I have] no problems shooting a cop trying to strip rights from Citizens.”
Perhaps these are what you meant by the "theme", but those seem considerably more explicit, especially for a subreddit already linked to an event that resulted in someone being murdered.
>Reddit wanted the_donald gone
Then why didn't they get rid of them until a year later? The event you're referencing seems to be part of the quarantine, not part of the banning. The banning took place after the mods of the subreddit tried to evade the quarantine by moving to another sub and continued to support breaking Reddit rules.
> Then why didn't they get rid of them until a year later? The event you're referencing seems to be part of the quarantine, not part of the banning. The banning took place after the mods of the subreddit tried to evade the quarantine by moving to another sub and continued to support breaking Reddit rules.
Except that what actually happened was they had moved off Reddit, locked the sub down as an archive, and then finally banned when they refused to accept the Reddit provided mods.
Except that what actually happened was they had moved off Reddit, locked the sub down as an archive, and then finally banned when they refused to accept the Reddit provided mods.
They tried to move to a non-quarantined subreddit first, but yeah? We're not in disagreement on that.. The scenario you just described is very different than the one you were talking about a post ago, which is why I called it misleading. They weren't banned over the Media Matters story.
They were initially quarantined because of posts highlighted by MediaMatters.
But not banned because of it, as you implied.
I just checked, and it looks like the website they moved to lasted only months, before the operator shut it down over concerns about racism, concerns from their host, and FBI inquiries. Painting it like it was just media matters picking up on one thing is far from the whole story. The place was septic.
I just checked, and it looks like the website they moved to lasted only months, before the operator shut it down over concerns about racism, concerns from their host, and FBI inquiries. Painting it like it was just media matters picking up on one thing is far from the whole story. The place was septic.
I actually don't think that Reddit wanted T_D gone - the Subreddit had a massive amount of subscribes and generated activity all over the site. It surely was controversial, but in the end it probably helped Reddit more than it damaged it.
It just seems that Reddit has a policy of cutting subreddits loose once they get mainstream media attention, in order to avoid overly negative press. It happened to T_D, WatchPeopleDie and quite a few other Subreddits; basically all bans came after they went into the spotlight despite existing (in some case, peacefully) for years. To me it seems that Reddit is totally fine with hosting controversial opinions as long as it doesn't generate press.
It just seems that Reddit has a policy of cutting subreddits loose once they get mainstream media attention, in order to avoid overly negative press. It happened to T_D, WatchPeopleDie and quite a few other Subreddits; basically all bans came after they went into the spotlight despite existing (in some case, peacefully) for years. To me it seems that Reddit is totally fine with hosting controversial opinions as long as it doesn't generate press.
Hah the funny you should say that about windsurfing, as the mod of the most popular surfing subreddit was banning anyone who posted in the Donald.
I'm sure there is some law for the most ridiculous example you can think of off the cuff, someone will find has been true somewhere. :)
I never saw that back then, that subs would ban you for that, but recently I posted a negative comment to No New Normal. I was instantly banned from almost every popular reddit sub.
A couple of them sent me a think saying they might unban me if I promised never to post there again. It wasn't a supportive comment, I was mocking one of them. How insane is it that the people that admin and mod Reddit are so fragile that they literally ban anyone who talks to people they don't like?
This can't continue. I suppose I appreciate their acceleration.
I never saw that back then, that subs would ban you for that, but recently I posted a negative comment to No New Normal. I was instantly banned from almost every popular reddit sub.
A couple of them sent me a think saying they might unban me if I promised never to post there again. It wasn't a supportive comment, I was mocking one of them. How insane is it that the people that admin and mod Reddit are so fragile that they literally ban anyone who talks to people they don't like?
This can't continue. I suppose I appreciate their acceleration.
R/watchpeopledie and similar got banned.
All of the porn subreddits that still exist banned domains that serve "unverified" content. The amateur porn scene has been leveled, most of which was legitimate content. Also a lot less user submitted content simply because the hassle of verification and also you have to formally identify yourself at one point. Claims of Reddit hosting illegal content is hugely overblown.
All of the porn subreddits that still exist banned domains that serve "unverified" content. The amateur porn scene has been leveled, most of which was legitimate content. Also a lot less user submitted content simply because the hassle of verification and also you have to formally identify yourself at one point. Claims of Reddit hosting illegal content is hugely overblown.
Reddit's gone to lengths to hide it, so casual users aren't hitting it by accident two clicks off an unrelated Google search result page, not on "/r/all", which gets advertisers what they want, without the uproar that banning porn would cause.
Reddit doesn't let people pay directly for content. You can gift awards but those aren't really worth anything.
> Reddit doesn't let people pay directly for content. You can gift awards but those aren't really worth anything.
Worth noting this scenario is even less similar than as you wrote it.
Not only can’t you pay content creators on Reddit, but the awards, are you paying Reddit for hosting the creator.
Reddit gets money, creator gets a png. It’s a really bad deal, and I’m not sure what kind of lunatic buys Reddit awards.
Worth noting this scenario is even less similar than as you wrote it.
Not only can’t you pay content creators on Reddit, but the awards, are you paying Reddit for hosting the creator.
Reddit gets money, creator gets a png. It’s a really bad deal, and I’m not sure what kind of lunatic buys Reddit awards.
So basically this just begs for the owners to create two clearly differentiated brands: (1) the current one will probably die like Tumblr but they have some high-profile non-porn creators so I think they will keep going for a while, (2) the second one geared towards porn mainly and accepting alternative payment methods like Webmoney, Paysafecard and others. They can start accepting credit cards and Paypal initially to gain users, and when the pressure builds up, drop the banks and hope that the users are so attached to their content they'll use the alternative methods.
It's a dollar cap - process enough dollars per month or per year, and Visa/Mastercard takes notice (as mentioned by Vice). For all the furor, taking payment via crypto's not viable outside of specific niches. Or rather, OnlyFans did the X vs Y of kick x-rated content off the platform vs get kicked off Visa/Mastercard's "platform", and is going with option 1.
Somehow they manage to get away with DMCA violations however. Lots of 'reaction' channels (where people watch along with a TV show or Youtube clip) now only post heavily truncated preview videos on Youtube. The full videos, which include the copyrighted content, sits on Patreon.
This doesn't make any sense. It's like if the Food Network suddenly announced that due to mounting pressure from advertisers, they would no longer be airing any cooking shows.
So the history channel then?
> But sex work still has a stigma. And OnlyFans is trying to raise money from outside investors at a valuation of more than $1 billion.
> The company handled more than $2 billion in sales last year, and is on pace to more than double that this year. It keeps 20% of that figure.
So they're killing the golden goose to placate outside money when they already are making ~800M a year?
Something here doesn't really add up but I don't know enough about this field to see what I'm missing.
> The company handled more than $2 billion in sales last year, and is on pace to more than double that this year. It keeps 20% of that figure.
So they're killing the golden goose to placate outside money when they already are making ~800M a year?
Something here doesn't really add up but I don't know enough about this field to see what I'm missing.
>citing mounting pressure from banking partners and payment providers
Based on the tweet, I would presume their ability accept payment via the established payment networks is being threatened.
Based on the tweet, I would presume their ability accept payment via the established payment networks is being threatened.
Yeah, they are basically screwing up their investors. They pumped up the valuation being a porn site and now will get a bunch of money with low dilution for hiring more executives and stuff probably with a stupid plan like "we are going to be the next Twitter" that will fail in like three years.
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 against Gab could explain how they reconcile the two positions. In both cases we have companies with dominant positions in the market denying or threatening to deny crucial services to another company.
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 against Gab could explain how they reconcile the two positions. In both cases we have companies with dominant positions in the market denying or threatening to deny crucial services to another company.
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?!"
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
So is every other social media site
Gab was created as a reaction to other social media sites trying to remove that content. They're clearly different beasts even if Facebook and Twitter don't do nearly good enough of a job at tackling it.
The point is that people who talk about a slippery slope were correct.
The more that you let large and powerful organizations, get away with targeting groups that you don't like, the more likely that those powerful organizations are going to be able to turn the guns on you, or your favorite cause, when public opinion doesn't go your way.
Neutral platforms, that don't discrimination, protects your enemies as well as your self. The slippery slope is real.
The people who oppose neutral platforms have made their bed. Now we'll see if they change their mind once they have to lay in it.
The more that you let large and powerful organizations, get away with targeting groups that you don't like, the more likely that those powerful organizations are going to be able to turn the guns on you, or your favorite cause, when public opinion doesn't go your way.
Neutral platforms, that don't discrimination, protects your enemies as well as your self. The slippery slope is real.
The people who oppose neutral platforms have made their bed. Now we'll see if they change their mind once they have to lay in it.
Assuming the issue is with payment processors, it's an existing issue. The same thing happened with Patreon and has been happening with other websites selling adult content for ages. If anything, the slope that they slipped down was the one resulting in Gab's troubles.
Most people don't really want neutral platforms. If you go to a restaurant and another customer is violently drunk, yelling, and really just ruining the night for everyone, we hope they get kicked out so that we can appreciate the restaurant. The person saying, "Yeah but next they're gonna come for [insert whatever thing that shouldn't result in getting kicked out]" could be right and the restaurant may cross what you think the line should be, but that doesn't mean that the restaurant was wrong to kick out the violently drunk person.
Similarly, I've seen dang around on HackerNews giving folks warning about their comments not really being a great fit, because they're low-effort, out of place, etc. In general, it keeps the quality of discussion here /way/ better than you'd see on Reddit. I like that they work to keep it that way... but it could be a slippery slope in the same way.
Most people don't really want neutral platforms. If you go to a restaurant and another customer is violently drunk, yelling, and really just ruining the night for everyone, we hope they get kicked out so that we can appreciate the restaurant. The person saying, "Yeah but next they're gonna come for [insert whatever thing that shouldn't result in getting kicked out]" could be right and the restaurant may cross what you think the line should be, but that doesn't mean that the restaurant was wrong to kick out the violently drunk person.
Similarly, I've seen dang around on HackerNews giving folks warning about their comments not really being a great fit, because they're low-effort, out of place, etc. In general, it keeps the quality of discussion here /way/ better than you'd see on Reddit. I like that they work to keep it that way... but it could be a slippery slope in the same way.
a violently drunk and yelling customer is causing harm to other customers. If they weren't we would be describing them as violently. How does adult content violently harm other content creators on OF?
If the restaurant kicked out a pair of customer because they happened to be in a same sex relationship, that would be less appreciated by other customers. They would ask the critical qualifying question "What harm have they done?", an question that distinguish the issue from the violently drunk.
If the restaurant kicked out a pair of customer because they happened to be in a same sex relationship, that would be less appreciated by other customers. They would ask the critical qualifying question "What harm have they done?", an question that distinguish the issue from the violently drunk.
> Most people don't really want neutral platforms.
Ok, then you if complain when stuff like this happens, then I am going to tell you "I told you so", and point out how stuff like this was a pretty inevitable result of this thinking.
You just have to sit back and say "Welp, this was the risk that I took, when I refused to support neutral platforms, so I guess I have to just suck it up, because nobody is going to defend me."
If you don't like this, then it is time for you to start supporting neutral platforms.
Pick one. Either support neutral platforms, or accept that I am going to make fun of you, and laugh at the irony, when the absence of neutral platforms comes back to bite you.
Ok, then you if complain when stuff like this happens, then I am going to tell you "I told you so", and point out how stuff like this was a pretty inevitable result of this thinking.
You just have to sit back and say "Welp, this was the risk that I took, when I refused to support neutral platforms, so I guess I have to just suck it up, because nobody is going to defend me."
If you don't like this, then it is time for you to start supporting neutral platforms.
Pick one. Either support neutral platforms, or accept that I am going to make fun of you, and laugh at the irony, when the absence of neutral platforms comes back to bite you.
You're not exactly leading by example. We are, again, having this conversation on a platform that isn't neutral and works to keep the content high quality.
It seems like your argument really boils down to "Power can be abused therefore no power should ever be used". It's kind of silly. Going back to the same points you ignored, governments criminalize murder. Do you have a problem with that? What about governments using that same power to criminalize weed? Or treat prisoners effectively as slaves? Or enforce segregation? Most folk aren't big fans of the last three but wouldn't want to live in a society where we're too afraid to stop murderers out of fear those same systems could be used to stop good folk. The only real difference is that I have considerably more control over the payment system I'm going to use than I do the government I'm going to live under.
Or take it down a bunch of notches. Most platforms take measures to try and fight spam. Do you remember e-mail before spam blockers improved? It was rough! Imagine the same on here, Twitter, etc. It seems to me those services would become useless quickly. But a service that works to block that isn't neutral, they're making decisions about what they will and won't support. I find it hard to imagine that you would prefer to use sites like that, and yet, that's what you're arguing for.
It seems like your argument really boils down to "Power can be abused therefore no power should ever be used". It's kind of silly. Going back to the same points you ignored, governments criminalize murder. Do you have a problem with that? What about governments using that same power to criminalize weed? Or treat prisoners effectively as slaves? Or enforce segregation? Most folk aren't big fans of the last three but wouldn't want to live in a society where we're too afraid to stop murderers out of fear those same systems could be used to stop good folk. The only real difference is that I have considerably more control over the payment system I'm going to use than I do the government I'm going to live under.
Or take it down a bunch of notches. Most platforms take measures to try and fight spam. Do you remember e-mail before spam blockers improved? It was rough! Imagine the same on here, Twitter, etc. It seems to me those services would become useless quickly. But a service that works to block that isn't neutral, they're making decisions about what they will and won't support. I find it hard to imagine that you would prefer to use sites like that, and yet, that's what you're arguing for.
> It seems like your argument really boils down
Nope! You have misunderstood my argument, and everything else you say in your post doesn't actually address the singular point I am making.
Instead my argument boils down to "I told you so", and that things like this happening are a completely expected result of people and platforms becoming less and less interested, over time, in agreeing with the general principles of neutrality.
So, you can't really act surprised when stuff like this happens.
Just don't act surprised. Don't pretend like you couldn't have predicted stuff like this happening. Thats all.
That is the only thing that I ask. Is that you don't play dumb, and be surprised that stuff like this is the result of society caring less and less about neutrality over time.
And if you actually want to address this pretty simple argument, you need to actually talk about this fake surprise, which nothing in the rest of your post did.
Nope! You have misunderstood my argument, and everything else you say in your post doesn't actually address the singular point I am making.
Instead my argument boils down to "I told you so", and that things like this happening are a completely expected result of people and platforms becoming less and less interested, over time, in agreeing with the general principles of neutrality.
So, you can't really act surprised when stuff like this happens.
Just don't act surprised. Don't pretend like you couldn't have predicted stuff like this happening. Thats all.
That is the only thing that I ask. Is that you don't play dumb, and be surprised that stuff like this is the result of society caring less and less about neutrality over time.
And if you actually want to address this pretty simple argument, you need to actually talk about this fake surprise, which nothing in the rest of your post did.
> I’d be interested if anyone who opposes the payment processors pressuring OnlyFans but supported the actions taken against Gab could explain how they reconcile the two positions.
I think most people would reconcile them fairly easily. Do you think there’s a surprising answer to be had here?
I think most people would reconcile them fairly easily. Do you think there’s a surprising answer to be had here?
The difference, of course, is threats and violence. I don't imagine many OnlyFans models are mentioning their love of firearms in the same breathe as they mention that civilization will end if we don't establish an all-white ethnostate.
There is a duopoly in payment processing because it's the most regulated industry in the world. Google, Apple and Amazon are in vastly different businesses, rose to where they were based on the free market and are sustained by it, would be there with or without regulation, and will eventually be replaced.
Personally I don't really care about either of these scenarios and a whole lot of the people complaining about this one are doing it for pretty obvious self-interested reasons, but you're being disingenuous by acting like these are the same thing. Visa and Mastercard are a government-enforced duopoly (with a few minor similarly-enforced exceptions). No tech company is as meaningfully.
Personally I don't really care about either of these scenarios and a whole lot of the people complaining about this one are doing it for pretty obvious self-interested reasons, but you're being disingenuous by acting like these are the same thing. Visa and Mastercard are a government-enforced duopoly (with a few minor similarly-enforced exceptions). No tech company is as meaningfully.
[deleted]
One provided a shelter for incitement to violence, culminating in an attack on the US Capitol.
The other one is naked people.
It's the difference between suing someone because they yelled "fire!" in a crowded adult theatre and being an actor on the stage of that theatre.
The other one is naked people.
It's the difference between suing someone because they yelled "fire!" in a crowded adult theatre and being an actor on the stage of that theatre.
mounting pressure from banking
partners and payment providers
This looks like one.
I'm one of those vocal sceptics on HN. I agree with you! Here's finally a huge industry that is consistently shunned by the mainstream payment providers.
I'm not being facetious. I believe it's a one of a kind opportunity for crypto currencies to step in, show the middle finger to the established payment pipelines and prove that a smooth, reliable and safe payment system can be operated even for the adult industry.
According to the Guardian[1] the adult industry clears between $10bln-$100bln a year. That's a lot turnover and clearly they are not being served well by the current providers. I'd imagine the fees are also acceptably higher (due to the increased fraud, etc..) so the profit margins should also be potentially higher.
I'm not being facetious. I believe it's a one of a kind opportunity for crypto currencies to step in, show the middle finger to the established payment pipelines and prove that a smooth, reliable and safe payment system can be operated even for the adult industry.
According to the Guardian[1] the adult industry clears between $10bln-$100bln a year. That's a lot turnover and clearly they are not being served well by the current providers. I'd imagine the fees are also acceptably higher (due to the increased fraud, etc..) so the profit margins should also be potentially higher.
You're right. I'm sure somebody is working on cryptonlyfans already.
I'm already preparing myself to be appalled by whatever the NFT scene does with this.
I'm already preparing myself to be appalled by whatever the NFT scene does with this.
What is stopping MasterCard and Visa from banning Coinbase and others if this happens
If bitcoin didnt get banned over drugs and murder-for-hire schemes, i cant imagine porn will be the tipping point.
My sense living in America is that sex-related issues are taken more seriously than, say, gun violence, murder, etc.
Well yeah, gun violence is our primary export.
I'm not sure if that would have any effect at all. I put money into Coinbase and pull it out of Coinbase with a bank account. Buying crypto with a credit card isn't a great idea.
[deleted]
Does coinbase even take credit cards?
https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/getting-started/add-a-...
https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/getting-started/add-a-...
They can't ban everything, since at the extremis you could buy crypto from eBay sellers.
But in the long run you are right: to avoid MasterCard and Visa we should move everything to crypto. It is the only way to control our own destiny.
But in the long run you are right: to avoid MasterCard and Visa we should move everything to crypto. It is the only way to control our own destiny.
>They can't ban everything, since at the extremis you could buy crypto from eBay sellers.
This is against eBay's policies. All items sold through their site must be delivered physically. If you type "bitcoin" in today you'll only get hardware or novelties, not the coins themselves.
This is against eBay's policies. All items sold through their site must be delivered physically. If you type "bitcoin" in today you'll only get hardware or novelties, not the coins themselves.
Okay, then sell a hardware token with the bitcoin on them, or the coins as QR codes printed on artisinal paper or whatever.
Or do the sale on some other platform that is similar to ebay.
Or do the sale on some other platform that is similar to ebay.
Most exchanges do ACH, wires, or other methods. Kraken is opening its own bank eventually, and will take direct deposits.
most of the folks I know fund their exchange accounts via ACH and not their card
We don't need them.
So why do you think they decided to ban sexually explicit content rather than use cryptocurrency?
because the payment providers have 99% of market share?
And why is this the case when a variety of cryptocurrencies are trivially available to the public.
Maybe because they had 30 years in establishing complete domination of global online economy and all traffic even the one that ends up in crypto goes through them ...
Also there is nothing trivial for the public.
and 99% of their revenue was from porn so i guess this business-ending decision is close to cryptopayment-parity
I imagine their options were:
* switch to crypto entirely
* keep credit cards, but block sexually explicit content
I doubt there was middleground where they could accept crypto for sexually explicit content, but still accept credit cards for everything else.
Which makes me think that a smart move here would be to spin off a second company that does allow this content, but only accepts payments in crypto. I suppose if they don't, there is a opportunity ripe for a competitor to take advantage of.
* switch to crypto entirely
* keep credit cards, but block sexually explicit content
I doubt there was middleground where they could accept crypto for sexually explicit content, but still accept credit cards for everything else.
Which makes me think that a smart move here would be to spin off a second company that does allow this content, but only accepts payments in crypto. I suppose if they don't, there is a opportunity ripe for a competitor to take advantage of.
HN often touts that crypto is either a Ponzi/MLM scheme or has as its only use criminal activity.
If you make basic payment processing for services criminal, then, by definition, cryptocurrency's primary use case is for criminal activity.
If you make basic payment processing for services criminal, then, by definition, cryptocurrency's primary use case is for criminal activity.
Porn isn't criminal... ?
The terrible thing is this probably pushes performers to more predatory platforms / aggregators.
I bet this move could somehow be traced to machinations from the big porn industry players. I think if people want to make money doing this stuff and they're legally of age in a place they do it, and if they're not hurting anyone, then you shouldn't get in their way. If it's a free choice to engage in it and they are not trafficed nor coerced nor debt trapped, it should be a way that people can access to generate income or express themselves is that if that's what they choose.
I've heard of onlyfans but I've never even seen any content on there and the screenshots I've seen have just been sort of racy but not explicit and i don't know anything about the background of this decision, but... just in general I think it's easy and useful to frame it from the point of view of freedom of expression and commerce versus a moral panic or crackdown on independent content creators who are empowering themselves with content in a market that pays premiums and they can achieve a better standard of life than by doing other things, and it's better than them working at the behest of or in contract to someone else. So from that point of view I think it's a great thing that people could do this (like uber for racy content or if you want to take it to the extreme: Uber for explicit content) and it's really sad that this platform seems to now be disallowing that I think to the great harm and detriment of all the people who could formerly freely engaged in making their money that way.
I bet this move could somehow be traced to machinations from the big porn industry players. I think if people want to make money doing this stuff and they're legally of age in a place they do it, and if they're not hurting anyone, then you shouldn't get in their way. If it's a free choice to engage in it and they are not trafficed nor coerced nor debt trapped, it should be a way that people can access to generate income or express themselves is that if that's what they choose.
I've heard of onlyfans but I've never even seen any content on there and the screenshots I've seen have just been sort of racy but not explicit and i don't know anything about the background of this decision, but... just in general I think it's easy and useful to frame it from the point of view of freedom of expression and commerce versus a moral panic or crackdown on independent content creators who are empowering themselves with content in a market that pays premiums and they can achieve a better standard of life than by doing other things, and it's better than them working at the behest of or in contract to someone else. So from that point of view I think it's a great thing that people could do this (like uber for racy content or if you want to take it to the extreme: Uber for explicit content) and it's really sad that this platform seems to now be disallowing that I think to the great harm and detriment of all the people who could formerly freely engaged in making their money that way.
A few comments here are drawing a parallel between tech companies shutting down Gab (temporarily) and payment processing companies forcing this move from OnlyFans (which from the outside looking in appears tantamount to shutting them down). Regardless of how you perceive the two specific cases, I think they make people uncomfortable because in both cases they demonstrate the power that large tech platforms have over law-abiding companies.
It seems to me that the government needs to take some of that power back from tech companies by clearly delineating which services can and cannot be refused and in what circumstances. For instance, I think it is perfectly right for Google to remove Gab from their app store if they wish, but I think it would be wrong if Gab was refused internet service by their ISP, for example. Similarly, as we transition to a cashless world I think there need to be limits on the authority that payment processors can exercise over which businesses are allowed to receive payments and which are not.
It seems to me that the government needs to take some of that power back from tech companies by clearly delineating which services can and cannot be refused and in what circumstances. For instance, I think it is perfectly right for Google to remove Gab from their app store if they wish, but I think it would be wrong if Gab was refused internet service by their ISP, for example. Similarly, as we transition to a cashless world I think there need to be limits on the authority that payment processors can exercise over which businesses are allowed to receive payments and which are not.
It really doesn't sit right with me that payment processors can emit such a huge pressure that OnlyFans is willing to loose 99.9% of their userbase becuase they just have no other choice.
Its almost as if Yarvin had a point when he described The Cathedral.
Remember when yahoo bought Tumblr for 1.1 billion, banned porn and later sold it for 3 million?
I may be being very naive here, so it would be great for someone to point out where I'm missing a trick, but if they make $2 billion in revenue and keep 20% of that, why don't they found or buy a small bank? I mean granted it's not their core business area, but it's a huge risk factor for them, so an acquisition doesn't seem out of the question to mitigate that risk...
According to here[0], banks need approx $20 million in startup capital. Now I don't know what onlyfan's costs are, but they seem to be sitting on a lot more than that or alternatively they could get financing.
Is there a reason this isn't a direction they've explored? The fact that they've not swapped to a more expensive payment provider implies that it's not a good option, but that may be a simpler solution, or they could provide a competitive option in this space?
- [0]: https://howtostartanllc.com/business-ideas/bank
According to here[0], banks need approx $20 million in startup capital. Now I don't know what onlyfan's costs are, but they seem to be sitting on a lot more than that or alternatively they could get financing.
Is there a reason this isn't a direction they've explored? The fact that they've not swapped to a more expensive payment provider implies that it's not a good option, but that may be a simpler solution, or they could provide a competitive option in this space?
- [0]: https://howtostartanllc.com/business-ideas/bank
Likely, the restrictions are coming at the card network level rather than the bank level. Building a Visa/Mastercard network is a much harder proposition than just buying a bank, especially as it pertains to consumer distribution.
CC processing business is hold by 2 American companies. When they warn you (through your CC acquirer), you have zero negotiation power. Comply or die.
You can use proxies if you are a small company. But at onlyFans' level, the solutions are limited.
PS: By experience, I can also confirm that most of the CC acquirers evaluate your business not on its legality but on its morality.
PS2: With mandatory 3DS2, the excuse of high fraud/complains rates (which were true 10 years ago) does not make sense anymore.
You can use proxies if you are a small company. But at onlyFans' level, the solutions are limited.
PS: By experience, I can also confirm that most of the CC acquirers evaluate your business not on its legality but on its morality.
PS2: With mandatory 3DS2, the excuse of high fraud/complains rates (which were true 10 years ago) does not make sense anymore.
Is there a difference between the title and "OnlyFans to shut down in October"? I literally didn't know OnlyFans had anything else besides porn/porn-esque material.
At some point I think they intended to be something line a competitor to Patreon. It also sounds like they're going to keep allowing softcore content.
> It also sounds like they're going to keep allowing softcore content.
That is such puritanical nonsense. You can show naked people rubbing together, but the moment you show a penis in a vagina, Satan comes to get you.
That is such puritanical nonsense. You can show naked people rubbing together, but the moment you show a penis in a vagina, Satan comes to get you.
Who the fuck is using OnlyFans for something _other_ than porn?
Apparently the LTT OnlyFans was very popular when it was around.
As a joke of them doing porn. I heard there are Minecraft Let's Plays on PornHub, but I doubt they'll cut of porn to go full in on Let's Plays (and if they did, it would probably kill them like this will kill OF).
I did not need to imagine Linus playing with himself today.
..wearing pink furry earmuffs...
[deleted]
What is it called when your greed for investor money ends up giving a giant opening for your competitor and destroying your business? Also how come even the most profitable company can't compete with deep SV pockets? Is this capitalism?
Maybe it's not investor money but issues with payment processors. Credit card companies don't like porn for some reason, and they're in a position where they can enforce such limits on many platforms.
I think "The Vine Effect" would be apt
It is, but it's not a very good one. Think about the billions that have gone into reinventing the taxi industry, the hotel industry and the food delivery industry. We don't call it 'picking winners' however, because it's not the filthy public sector doing it. And also because none of Uber, Airbnb or DoorDash can really be considered a 'win'.
State-backed capitalism has its faults, but they usually try to move billions into a strategically important area that benefits a large enough section of the economy.
State-backed capitalism has its faults, but they usually try to move billions into a strategically important area that benefits a large enough section of the economy.
Were they getting their credit card processing in the non-adult category. I know a bunch of adult credit card processors are in the range of 12-15% and OF only takes 20%. Maybe that is why they are cracking down on them.
There are plenty of porn sites out there operating legally, wonder why the banks are giving them issue.
My guess is that they presented themselves to banks as just ordinary non-adult transactions and now the banks are seeing that they are almost entirely adult so they want to put them into the higher and more expensive "high-risk" category and OF won't be able to get away with only taking 20% from the models.
I guess I'm getting back into the adult website game. I work with tons of adult models as a photographer and got out of making websites due to OnlyFans.
There are plenty of porn sites out there operating legally, wonder why the banks are giving them issue.
My guess is that they presented themselves to banks as just ordinary non-adult transactions and now the banks are seeing that they are almost entirely adult so they want to put them into the higher and more expensive "high-risk" category and OF won't be able to get away with only taking 20% from the models.
I guess I'm getting back into the adult website game. I work with tons of adult models as a photographer and got out of making websites due to OnlyFans.
Their primary payments processor was CCBill, so no, they were using "adult proof" providers. I think there's something going on on the adult payments industry that I don't know about.
Either PornHub/OF got too big even for CCBill's approach to dealing with fraud, or CCBill is pulling the plug on websites that take market away from "traditional porn" probably because of pressure from the later.
Either PornHub/OF got too big even for CCBill's approach to dealing with fraud, or CCBill is pulling the plug on websites that take market away from "traditional porn" probably because of pressure from the later.
Probably more pressure from banks related to payouts, then processing.
Money laundering and tax avoidance is a big deal and if OF isn't going out of their way to make everyone happy then they have a potentially multi-billion dollar a year money laundering business going on.
Money laundering and tax avoidance is a big deal and if OF isn't going out of their way to make everyone happy then they have a potentially multi-billion dollar a year money laundering business going on.
I always felt like adult websites were tech unsavvy. Like they usually designed the site with plenty of love and care, but the structures holding that design up felt notably behind-the-times. Got a take on that?
The cliché is the inverse. Porn is always the first industry in making use of new technologies. VHS, DVD, www, streaming video etc.
Used to be the case. They are far behind now. Just read the docs for CCBill. Most of adult is still PHP even for new stuff. And they usually work on the servers directly instead of using version control and staging servers. Only the really bigger adult companies adopt a modicum of modern programming practices.
Ostensibly, payment providers block this type of thing because it has higher fraud risk, but this makes me wonder: do countries where credit is less fundamental to payments have the same problem? My understanding is that in the UK, for example, you could make a deposit to a betting site with the same payment card you use to buy milk, since it's more secure than a credit card and the counterparty assumes less risk.
That should be a myth by now. Would be interesting if e.g. Stripe could share the fraud statistics for onlyfans. The banks probably do this purely to keep up appearances and avoid potential bad PR.
I don't understand who appointed the banks became the keepers of puritanical propriety. They're terrified someone might see a boob or buy some weed, and the weight of the world rests on the banks to prevent that from happening.
> I don't understand who appointed the banks became the keepers of puritanical propriety.
Congress, for one. There's a history of bills that are meant to target trafficking scooping up consensual practices as well (see also the Mann Act, SESTA/FOSTA). I'm not sure how influential the threat of something like this was here, but it can't help:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/human-trafficking-banking-bil...
Congress, for one. There's a history of bills that are meant to target trafficking scooping up consensual practices as well (see also the Mann Act, SESTA/FOSTA). I'm not sure how influential the threat of something like this was here, but it can't help:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/human-trafficking-banking-bil...
It's probably not fraud so much as it is chargebacks from guys whose wives are asking "wtf is this OnlyFans charge?!?"
"Ah shit, honey. Somebody must have stolen my card."
"Ah shit, honey. Somebody must have stolen my card."
that's the popular myth. is there evidence for that?
This was targeted illegally by the administration under Operation Choke Point, and I would hazard to guess something similar is happening again now.
Same here in the Netherlands, we pay with a debit card. In stores as well as online.
May people do have one (55%) as it sometimes comes with a payment package, but they are generally frowned upon as tech from the stone age and insecure.
May people do have one (55%) as it sometimes comes with a payment package, but they are generally frowned upon as tech from the stone age and insecure.
Here in the United States I use the same debit card for sports betting and groceries.
> The company will prohibit users from posting any sexually explicit conduct, starting in October. Creators will still be allowed to post nude photos and videos, provided they’re consistent with OnlyFans’ policy, the company said Thursday.
This paragraph contradicts itself:
- The company will prohibit users from posting any sexually explicit
Versus
- Creators will still be allowed to post nude photos and videos
What is this article trying to say?
This paragraph contradicts itself:
- The company will prohibit users from posting any sexually explicit
Versus
- Creators will still be allowed to post nude photos and videos
What is this article trying to say?
Looks like OF is saying softcore only and is gonna call anything they don't like explicit based on the whim of the reviewer.
The Brandi Maxx definition of pornography
nude is not the same thing as sexually explicit.
That's true, but I suspect that there's enough of an overlap on a site like OnlyFans that the Venn diagram is basically a circle.
Seemly nudity is fine, sex is not.
So long, OnlyFans. You started a golden age just as quickly as you ended it.
At the end of July I started noticing odd ads for that site while browsing reddit on mobile. Out of curiosity, I started collecting screenshots of the ads. They have been trying to pivot for a little while now:
https://i.imgur.com/Kh6zMga.png
https://i.imgur.com/Kh6zMga.png
I haven't fact-checked, but this OF creator posted screenshots of her chat with OF support denying the Bloomberg article & stating sexually explicit stills and videos will still be allowed: https://mobile.twitter.com/ShyCutieMFC/status/14285024291510...
We're building an alternative to OnlyFans! And we're hiring a Head of Engineering and a Senior Engineer.
https://angel.co/l/2vyMwb https://angel.co/l/2vA8yr
HMU [email protected]
https://angel.co/l/2vyMwb https://angel.co/l/2vA8yr
HMU [email protected]
We're building an alternative to OnlyFans! And we're hiring a Head of Engineering and a Senior Engineer!
https://angel.co/l/2vyMwb https://angel.co/l/2vA8yr
HMU [email protected]
https://angel.co/l/2vyMwb https://angel.co/l/2vA8yr
HMU [email protected]
I'm curious, what cloud or SaaS solutions are your company using? Many of the cloud solutions I've looked at explicitly forbid pornographic, explicit, or 'obscene' content. Do you self-host instead?
Atlassian Cloud, for example, forbids hosting any of that sort of content on their services, which could make development difficult. With their server subscriptions gone, this is even more of an issue.
Places like Azure will host the content internally, but don't allow you to share the content publicly in any way that ties it back to them. Such as sharing an explicit image on OneDrive or hosting a website that pings back to their IP space.
How do you get around these challenges in development?
Atlassian Cloud, for example, forbids hosting any of that sort of content on their services, which could make development difficult. With their server subscriptions gone, this is even more of an issue.
Places like Azure will host the content internally, but don't allow you to share the content publicly in any way that ties it back to them. Such as sharing an explicit image on OneDrive or hosting a website that pings back to their IP space.
How do you get around these challenges in development?
[deleted]
So I can buy porn in a store but not online?
What's next?
They are payment providers not the moral police.
That's one of the advantages of cash.
That's one of the advantages of cash.
The sub-headline is more interesting:
"The company will prohibit users from posting any sexually explicit conduct, starting in October. Creators will still be allowed to post nude photos and videos, provided they’re consistent with OnlyFans’ policy"
"The company will prohibit users from posting any sexually explicit conduct, starting in October. Creators will still be allowed to post nude photos and videos, provided they’re consistent with OnlyFans’ policy"
It sounds like they're trying to thread the needle and be Instagram with titties, or take up the tasteful softcore torch that Playboy used to carry.
Tasteful softcore like the programmer's test image? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenna
Problem with these sites is that how do you ensure that everything is voluntary? You might end up making money for a pimp or human trafficking group.
This is a real concern especially on the cam content. It’s quite tempting business for some pimp on low-income country to get house, few cameras and put ladies to work.
Kind of same issues with the porn in general, but I assume there’s lots of paperwork happening on background for large production companies.
This is a real concern especially on the cam content. It’s quite tempting business for some pimp on low-income country to get house, few cameras and put ladies to work.
Kind of same issues with the porn in general, but I assume there’s lots of paperwork happening on background for large production companies.
Why can PornHub successfully sell a premium porn service but OnlyFans cannot? Is it just the size of the company?
I don't know if you were aware but PornHub had a massive scandal with the content people were uploading that led to them basically deleting the majority of user contributions altogether. So maybe not so easy for them either.
Wasn't that a copyright issue? People uploading stuff for which they didn't own the authorship rights?
OnlyFans does not seem to have that problem at any significant scale at all, so why can't they figure out a way to handle payments for porn?
OnlyFans does not seem to have that problem at any significant scale at all, so why can't they figure out a way to handle payments for porn?
No, it was primarily about various forms of nonconsensual and underage content.
pornhub is having this issue exactly. They got PNG'd by all the payment processors. They only have crypto payment options now. My bet is pornhub is doing a lot worse now than they were before.
https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/pornhub-crypto-news
https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/pornhub-crypto-news
Their FAQ is still showing that they offer credit card payments via Probiller, but clicking onwards does indeed show them temporarily not accepting credit card payments, defaulting to a SEPA transfer instead.
i imagine their income from a few years ago is much larger than it is today.
From my understanding, one of the major reasons that payment processors don't like porn is the regretful customer problem, which makes this sort of content a lot more likely to be disputed/have chargebacks. One of the oft-mentioned downsides to Cryptocurrency is the 'no takebacks' property. Perhaps these two things fit together? Also avoids the problem of payment processors dictating morality.
One of the current owners is the guy behind myfreecams - he knows how to run a porn site (and get cards to work on it).
This split - and it's going to be a split (as they'd be insane to let that much porn money walk) is just to leave behind a nice investable onlyfans to rival patreon.
This split - and it's going to be a split (as they'd be insane to let that much porn money walk) is just to leave behind a nice investable onlyfans to rival patreon.
[deleted]
If the issue is coming from banks and payment processors, why doesn't Patreon have this same kind of problem? They both fill the same niche, right?
Edit: Apparently the same thing happened to them too. Thank you to the person who linked the other discussion below.
Edit: Apparently the same thing happened to them too. Thank you to the person who linked the other discussion below.
They do have this problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17432801
I think this is a rule to keep payment processors happy that won't be enforced. How are they going to find these sexually explicit videos among all the nude videos they still allow? Maybe they have software that can distinguish between a nude video and a sexually explicit nude video. If not they need to either review videos that are posted or rely on users to report sexually explicit videos. I doubt they want to manually review all uploaded videos, so that leaves user reports. Who is going to report an onlyfans account they subscribe to for posting an explicit video? Probably nobody.
Why is Bloomberg the primary source for this? OnlyFans is too cowardly to make a press release?
Anyway, it seems like OF is about to accomplish an epic maneuver: raise money at a $1 billion valuation based on a product you just cancelled.
Anyway, it seems like OF is about to accomplish an epic maneuver: raise money at a $1 billion valuation based on a product you just cancelled.
I wonder if that answers this question from 11 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24291790
Reason for crypto right here. They're not going to stop offering payment processing to crypto sites.
One reason often cited for payment processors not wanting adult companies is because of high level of chargebacks, but I don't understand this in the situation at hand here: it is not that this company is going to stop accepting payments, it is that they are going to prevent sexual content and keep nudity, so it shouldn't change much the behavior expected around those chargebacks?
I genuinely don't understand. If PornHub and Chaturbate can accept major credit cards for explicit sexual material, why can't OnlyFans?
This is good because it will mean an upsurge of competitors. I personally know several.
In general, internet is mostly about porn or sex (Tinder, Facebook which is really for hookups when it's not for paid political propaganda), or for illegal activity (fintech, darknets) or for scam (adtech, freelance sites). I wonder what people who opt for "none of the above" are thinking.
In general, internet is mostly about porn or sex (Tinder, Facebook which is really for hookups when it's not for paid political propaganda), or for illegal activity (fintech, darknets) or for scam (adtech, freelance sites). I wonder what people who opt for "none of the above" are thinking.
The everlasting war against the human naked body continues.
I genuinely struggle to understand the obsession of these payment processors have to block services that focus on displaying the naked human form. Are we as a species so despicable that a nipple offends us? We are all born naked and are essentially part of the larger ecosystem on this planet.
Sure, I could understand the high chargeback rates argument , but then again, huge Bahamuts like MC and Visa can surely absorb the cost here.
These systems provide a safe channel for sex workers to profit _directly_ from their services and yet here we have society pushing them to an unsafe alley to profit.
I hope the hypocrisy of western nations supporting the sexual liberation of women whilst cracking down on their ability to do as they please with their bodies should not go unnoticed .
The extreme religious institutions and people supporting these policies should go down in history as villains.
I sincerely hope that future generations drive change and that one day we can look back at this time and chuckle.
I genuinely struggle to understand the obsession of these payment processors have to block services that focus on displaying the naked human form. Are we as a species so despicable that a nipple offends us? We are all born naked and are essentially part of the larger ecosystem on this planet.
Sure, I could understand the high chargeback rates argument , but then again, huge Bahamuts like MC and Visa can surely absorb the cost here.
These systems provide a safe channel for sex workers to profit _directly_ from their services and yet here we have society pushing them to an unsafe alley to profit.
I hope the hypocrisy of western nations supporting the sexual liberation of women whilst cracking down on their ability to do as they please with their bodies should not go unnoticed .
The extreme religious institutions and people supporting these policies should go down in history as villains.
I sincerely hope that future generations drive change and that one day we can look back at this time and chuckle.
"History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes."
Prediction:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38963007
Also relevant... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_o8vYUU-jo
Prediction:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38963007
Also relevant... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_o8vYUU-jo
From the comments here, it sounds like the main issue is payment processors needing to accommodate "vice laws" or something. Can someone explain why OnlyFans can't simply use non-US payment processors to get around this? My understanding is that many European countries are much less concerned with vice than the US.
Absolutely terrible that companies feel the need to drop sex workers, many of whom depend on the platform to make a living.
Don't even blame onlyfans because it's the demands of banks and VCs in this case and society at large who still treat sex workers like some kind of caste of undesirables they don't want to be associated with.
Don't even blame onlyfans because it's the demands of banks and VCs in this case and society at large who still treat sex workers like some kind of caste of undesirables they don't want to be associated with.
Why can't these websites simply find other banks to do business with?
I mean also overseas, for sure the extra costs (if any) are better than basically killing the golden goose.
The odds of Onlyfans becoming the huge phenomenon that it is were so slim, it seems like a waste of luck to just throw it all away because of banking problems.
I mean also overseas, for sure the extra costs (if any) are better than basically killing the golden goose.
The odds of Onlyfans becoming the huge phenomenon that it is were so slim, it seems like a waste of luck to just throw it all away because of banking problems.
Because it's Visa and Mastercard saying no, not the banks.
Visa and Mastercard allow adult. They just force you to pay the "high-risk" category. Which is much higher fees. OF can't get away with only charging models 20% if credit card processing is taking more than half of that.
I suspect they are currently not classified as adult and the banks are saying, look, you are almost entirely adult so you have to pay us more.
I suspect they are currently not classified as adult and the banks are saying, look, you are almost entirely adult so you have to pay us more.
I mean, yeah, that's one of the mechanisms. Charge you close to an order of magnitude more for being "high-risk", while also putting all the actual risk on you as well. Visa/MC are more than compensated for each chargeback with the additional fees the charge the vendor for each chargeback.
And this is typically offset by maintaining a rolling-reserve too. Any merchant doing over 200K in transactions is considered high risk.
Do people chargeback the 50$ they spend on OnlyFans?
Besides PR in the age of revenge porn, what's the technical or legal element which changed compared to 2019?
Can't be social because if anything society is in love with porn.
Besides PR in the age of revenge porn, what's the technical or legal element which changed compared to 2019?
Can't be social because if anything society is in love with porn.
Why hasn't someone started a bank and/or payment processor without these puritanical moral qualms about adult content? Seems like the real golden goose, waiting to be had.
Because that sounds more like an ideologically-driven venture than something that would be good business.
Call it "providing financial services to a neglected/stigmatized sector of the entertainment industry and bringing the benefits of official banking and regulations", then. Yes my first comment was probably worded with an inflammatory bent, but this does genuinely seem like an underserved sector.
Akin to the problems legal marijuana grows and dispensaries have with accessing banking services (though in that case due to federal regs), the stances of the entrenched industry leaders seem to bring more negatives than would come from providing the needed services.
Akin to the problems legal marijuana grows and dispensaries have with accessing banking services (though in that case due to federal regs), the stances of the entrenched industry leaders seem to bring more negatives than would come from providing the needed services.
I understand, but there's usually a good reason why the underserved sectors are the way they are. For the payments industry I would imagine this market is simply not large enough to allow for economies of scale, so the services can't be priced at a level where it can be sustainable.
It seems like an obvious area for crypto to stake a claim, but that doesn't appear to have happened.
It seems like an obvious area for crypto to stake a claim, but that doesn't appear to have happened.
What an absolute shame. Not particularly because I use OF, but because they feel the need to do this, due to public pressure, pressure from banks, etc. When are we going to stop moral policing (literally via power of the state and figuratively) consensual adult activities?
No idea how this will play out, but this is very reminiscent of Yahoo and Tumblr: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/tumblr-sold-to-wordpress
smells like a publicity stunt to me. "omg. wtf, onlyfans, I won't be able to pay my bills" a million sex workers howl into social media. For 2 months. october rolls around, "we've decided to reverse course". So much free publicity.
It's a risky game though, because you're opening the space to potential competitors for two months. That's some significant time to achieve network effects, and people who move out are unlikely to ever get back.
[deleted]
> The changes are needed because of mounting pressure from banking partners and payment providers, according to the company.
Fintech's finest financially suffocating OnlyFans, forcing them to ban explicit videos off of their platform.
Somebody has got to lose.
Fintech's finest financially suffocating OnlyFans, forcing them to ban explicit videos off of their platform.
Somebody has got to lose.
> The changes are needed because of mounting pressure from banking partners and payment providers, according to the company.
What's their argument here, is there a law being broken or is the pressure motivated by ethics or something else?
What's their argument here, is there a law being broken or is the pressure motivated by ethics or something else?
The marketplace desperately needs payment processors that handle adult content.
Arguments against it scale down to "because there is exploitation, we shouldn't have any porn". This is the drug war mentality. Guess where it leads
Arguments against it scale down to "because there is exploitation, we shouldn't have any porn". This is the drug war mentality. Guess where it leads
That is a lot of people who are suddenly going to need to find work...but I think a lot of the sexually themed OF's will migrate to other cam websites. I wonder how much money OF will lose because of this decision?
This question isn't necessarily directed to you but your comment made me wonder: How do other cam sites handle payments and what makes them different than OF?
They use payment processors that specialize in adult content - who charge exorbitant fees for the privilege. Adult payment processors charge 15-20% vs the 2.9%+30¢ Stripe charges, and is nowhere near as nice to use.
So uhh... time to raise some funds and launch a crypto-payments version of OF?
Thinking I might build a version or two of this. If someone's raising money, maybe we should partner on it. I'd need help with ads / marketing for this kind of scale.. the other parts shouldn't be a problem.
A question to you entrepreneurial types.
Why does an globally established and growing company with a proven business model want to raise a billion dollar investment?
It's money they'll have to pay back with interest and I assume there would be other strings attached (like the high risk implied by the title of this article). How is possibly better than organic growth at this point where they are probably close to market saturation (in the sense that further exponential growth is implausible)?
Why does an globally established and growing company with a proven business model want to raise a billion dollar investment?
It's money they'll have to pay back with interest and I assume there would be other strings attached (like the high risk implied by the title of this article). How is possibly better than organic growth at this point where they are probably close to market saturation (in the sense that further exponential growth is implausible)?
Looks like I had the wrong link on my clipboard. This is what I intended to post: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-19/onlyfans-...
Wait, so what are they going to do without their only source of revenue? I was pretty well under the impression that OF pretty much only hosted camgirl accounts. I mean, other than the token "thought influencers" they probably bought to try to give themselves a glimmer of legitimacy. It's so bad that other social media sites (well, TikTok, I don't know about others) completely ban mention of OnlyFans under the assumption it's just porn.
Payment processors are totally cool with exploitation of kids with Cuties but lord forbid if consensual adults want to share sexual content, then that's a problem!
[deleted]
The company will prohibit users from posting any sexually explicit conduct, starting in October. Creators will still be allowed to post nude photos and videos.
Makes sense
Makes sense
OF should complain to ftc or whoever that the payment processors bullying disproportionally effects women and lgbtq community. I am not being sarcastic
This is asking for a partnership with shopify: onlyfans could automatically generate a t-shirt/coffee cup store on shopify and a t-shirt fulfillment partner, and creators could perform for fans who buy a lot of t-shirts ("buy 3 t-shirts and I'll take off mine for you!") with smooth bidirectional API integration etc. Card processors can't ban all these people buying t-shirts.
It speaks volumes that this post, only 7 hours old at this point, is one of the most commented on, voted on posts within recent history.
Question, what is the open source/decentralized alternative for these? Just cryptocurrency? The unfortunate part of crypto I think for the public is that it's highly volatile and only used by people who want to speculate with it.
It feels like the only way to solve the payment processor issue is to somehow have a change to US laws that no longer criminalize sex work.
It feels like the only way to solve the payment processor issue is to somehow have a change to US laws that no longer criminalize sex work.
Basically, the site is rebranding as OnlyBans :)
Banks, payment processors are the police officers, or rather soldiers of the world.
They're really just helping the adoption to mainstream crypto.
They're really just helping the adoption to mainstream crypto.
Sex work is legitimate work. They should not be shame and pushed to the fringes as we do here in the US, both by power of state and morality. I cringe at the number of people, mostly women of course, who are going to lose their livelihood because of "virtual Karens" imposing THEIR moral beliefs on others via power of the state.
[deleted]
> Starting in October, the company will prohibit creators from posting material with sexually explicit conduct on its website [...]. They’ll still be allowed to put up nude photos and videos, provided they’re consistent with OnlyFans’ policy.
So nude is OK but it may not sexually explicit?
That seems like a very fine line to walk, with much associated drama.
So nude is OK but it may not sexually explicit?
That seems like a very fine line to walk, with much associated drama.
It's been a pretty well established line with the MPAA for decades, so they can likely use that standard out of the box.
[deleted]
I actually thought it was a porn site just like the many other streaming video sites. If the founder had non-porn consumer app ambitions, why not just clone it and form another site? They are just giving until October for some other app to fill the void. I am sure pornhub or someone will jump in and take their money.
[deleted]
There was even a AskHN question here a while ago (1..3 years) from somebody ot of this kind of business. A part of the discussion was also how OnlyFans just can do it. The fall of Wirecard (and new owner) was a problem for Pornhub last year.
I the most early case I know was Fetlife .. it had been over 10 years now..
Good luck surviving that exodus. Dropping porn killed Tumblr, Onlyfans doesn't have anything that makes it stand apart from competition like Patreon.
For sex workers, there is ManyVids that will eat their lunch.
Only benefit out of this, maybe nsfw Reddit will be worth a visit again when most of the OF ~~spammers~~sellers have gone.
For sex workers, there is ManyVids that will eat their lunch.
Only benefit out of this, maybe nsfw Reddit will be worth a visit again when most of the OF ~~spammers~~sellers have gone.
The ability to tip and unlock content in DMs as well as tip on posts makes OF different from patreon. Tips bring in ALOT of money to popular creators, way more than the monthly subscription.
Payment processors need to be declared a utility. Any legal business shouldnt have banks playing morality police.
This supposedly coming soon system should ideally be able to serve as the electronic payment utility.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/fednow_about.h...
https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/fednow_about.h...
Curiously similar to "Pix" launched by brazilian central bank about a year ago.
A quick Google search will show you dozens and dozens of countries getting instant payment systems promoted by their own central banks during the last years.
Really makes you wonder who could be behind such a "coincidence".
One of the big issues in 2008 was that payments took multiple days to clear. That meant all the banks owed each other big chunks of money. That's not really a problem: if Bank A owes Bank B 1Bn and Bank B owes bank A 1.01 Bn, they're both solvent and you can just net them off to tell what your profit is.
But if Bank A suddenly goes Bankrupt, Bank B might still owe Banks A's creditors but won't get paid. So Bank B is fucked now too, even though they weren't doing anything dumb. In turn other banks will be pulled down when Bank B fails. This is why Lehmans was bailed out (in theory, conspiracies aside)
This is called Contagion, it's a type of counterparty risk: the risk that you make good deals and everything works out in your favour but the people who are meant to pay you welch.
To reduce this, there has been a big push to cut the time between trades\deals and settlement of payments. Ideally we want it to be immediate.
This is one reason central banks might be pushing this.
But if Bank A suddenly goes Bankrupt, Bank B might still owe Banks A's creditors but won't get paid. So Bank B is fucked now too, even though they weren't doing anything dumb. In turn other banks will be pulled down when Bank B fails. This is why Lehmans was bailed out (in theory, conspiracies aside)
This is called Contagion, it's a type of counterparty risk: the risk that you make good deals and everything works out in your favour but the people who are meant to pay you welch.
To reduce this, there has been a big push to cut the time between trades\deals and settlement of payments. Ideally we want it to be immediate.
This is one reason central banks might be pushing this.
If there is any conspiracy, it would have to be how the hell did it take so long for all these societies to come up with an electronic payment utility.
Well, it's pretty simple, actually. Central banking is a monopoly, you don't need to be the best option if you're the only one.
Curiously, all central banks start launching efficient payment systems as soon as crypto shows up.
Not really affirming any conspiracy here since I'm very uneducated at the subject, I just thinks it's suspiciously interesting to a point I can't ignore, almost as if all those central banks were coordinating as part of a larger goal.
Not really affirming any conspiracy here since I'm very uneducated at the subject, I just thinks it's suspiciously interesting to a point I can't ignore, almost as if all those central banks were coordinating as part of a larger goal.
One of my personal conspiracy theories is that bitcoin (and Tor) are the reason so many states have legalised weed: you have to permit what you cannot actually police.
Hopefully we'll see the same effect here with bitcoin or a single processor making a killing in the market for "sins"...
Hopefully we'll see the same effect here with bitcoin or a single processor making a killing in the market for "sins"...
Aha, so OnlyFans is closing business. Sweet.
Anybody interested in building a clone and taking over of their core business?
Anybody interested in building a clone and taking over of their core business?
Considering thousands and thousands of people will lose their only source of income, this is far from "sweet". Please stay far away from the industry if you lack such basic empathy.
Fortunately, if you're feeling entrepreneurial, you can spin up an Agora* instance and start selling whatever you want for Lightning Payments.
* https://github.com/agora-org/agora/
* https://github.com/agora-org/agora/
This is not accessible to 90% of SWers, and if it is, it will not earn them a living.
More money for Twitter. I would venture to say Twitter has more sexually explicit content then OnlyFans.
Isn't their whole business model "explicit"? I don't get how this will work out for them.
Based on the Indie Hackers interview with two active Only Fans content makers, it also sounds like their app is kinda shitty and slow.
Seems like they're opening the door wide open to a new competitor.
Based on the Indie Hackers interview with two active Only Fans content makers, it also sounds like their app is kinda shitty and slow.
Seems like they're opening the door wide open to a new competitor.
A new competitor will face the exact same problem, unless they try and do something like accepting cryptocurrency.
Really weird that they are kicking off a large portion of their user base for inclusive reasons.
Are there any major non-porn OnlyFans creators? I’ve never seen it referenced outside of adult content.
I don't know where to find a trustworthy list, but I've read that several of the biggest ones are fitness influencers and personal trainers who do preview videos on Instagram/YouTube/Twitch and use OnlyFans to post the full routine/program and provide individual consultation. Granted, there's not exactly a bright line between fitness content and softcore porn, but they're typically not put in the same category for administrative/policy purposes.
It seems to me that the adult industry in the US is pigeonholed into that, and it seems to me that taboo is a factor in it. In comparison, Japan's DMM is primarily known for its adult products, but is also very well diversified.
There's clearly some sort of opportunity here for an Audius like decentralized application/protocol (with the UI figured out), or just applications on Urbit when that stack is ready enough.
Centralized services like this will always fail eventually. We need better models than our current megacorp/client stack and the incentives that creates for most services.
In this case though it may be a factor of liability changes on high risk content: https://www.wired.com/story/how-a-controversial-new-sex-traf...
It's not so much the tech companies and payment processors that are making policy, but a reaction from them to changes in government policy that increases their exposure.
Centralized services like this will always fail eventually. We need better models than our current megacorp/client stack and the incentives that creates for most services.
In this case though it may be a factor of liability changes on high risk content: https://www.wired.com/story/how-a-controversial-new-sex-traf...
It's not so much the tech companies and payment processors that are making policy, but a reaction from them to changes in government policy that increases their exposure.
I didn't even know that OnlyFans had non-porn content but I guess the name makes sense. I feel like their brand is known for porn and if it's gone the name is too tainted to succeed in anything else.
I remember PH having the same issue. Do payment processors take on liability for facilitating sexual content that is illegal in some way? Is it a PR thing? Is mastercard owned by the Holy See? What's the deal?
Most likely it's about FOSTA-SESTA in the United States which exempts you from Section 230.
The BBC claims that this is due to an investigation it did.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58255865
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58255865
Why not use something like plaid and then do direct bank transfers rather than use credit cards. You could also accept cryptocurrencies. This decision will kill their business
I've seen them brag about revenue, and it looks amazing. That said the porn industry if filled with liars, and I don't believe anything w/o and audited results.
Wow wow wow, this is incredible for startups who were trying to get in this space but were having a tough time competing with OnlyFans. It will be a transfer of wealth.
i’ll say it, who wants to go co-founder on a new startup idea?
This is a topic I've been researching for years. I run an adult game company myself. If there are other technical people willing to work on something to solve this problem at its core, I'd help.
[deleted]
i'm down
Let’s do it
Why not lol
This is why we need fully private and untraceable cryptocurrencies like monero, pirate chain and mobilecoin. Someone should tell the people at onlyfans.
OF will probably die off and clone will emerge in the country that US can't pressure into complying. Like it happened with torrent trackers.
Is this the terminal stage of a tech startup?
Your entire business model was crushed by payment companies so you pivot in whatever direction you think you can.
Your entire business model was crushed by payment companies so you pivot in whatever direction you think you can.
McDonald's to stop selling burgers and fries.
American absurdity. Selling violence and killing off thousands of people with their arms is no big deal, but a bit of nudity is.
Imagine there was a huge oligopoly of payment providers that had full control of global online economy explicitly regulating content.
When they cross the river, they burn the bridge.
[deleted]
What an absolutely dumb move. Why not leave the thing on autopilot generating $400m a year, and start a new site for SFW simping?
According to OnlyFans, nudity is still allowed (be interesting to see where they draw the line regarding what's explicit)
OnlyFans going out of business in November.
So nobody learnt anything from whatever Tumblr pulled. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Amazing.
Isn't this the case for Cum Rocket?!?
Isn't it funny how porn-related news generate such great interest and such fiery intellectual debates on HN?
Porn app bans porn. Serious onion vibes
But today's not April 1st and the source is not The Onion. I don't understand.
Is there anything else on OnlyFans? Without porn, OnlyFans is just another Patreon knock-off.
It sounds like they'll basically continue to allow tasteful nudes, which is probably about half their content. So they're only killing an enormous fraction of their business, not the entire thing.
Actually yeah, from the content creators I know and have talked to, as long as you’re verified on the platform you can still post whatever. The assumption seems to be that solo stuff will still be fine, but maybe not the actual sex.
But it will still effectively be a crackdown on marginalized sexualities seen as “deviant” (aka the trans and bdsm communities). That was honestly the majority of the sexual content on Tumblr back in the day; they were on Tumblr because the mainstream porn industry doesn’t create a space that isn’t exploitative and fetishy.
The same is true on OF - trans men and women making porn are way disproportionately represented in the top creators lists. Sex work is how a lot of trans people have had to survive, and OF has made sex work much safer than it’s ever been. It would be a shame to lose an outlet like this — tempts me to go out and create one specifically for porn.
But it will still effectively be a crackdown on marginalized sexualities seen as “deviant” (aka the trans and bdsm communities). That was honestly the majority of the sexual content on Tumblr back in the day; they were on Tumblr because the mainstream porn industry doesn’t create a space that isn’t exploitative and fetishy.
The same is true on OF - trans men and women making porn are way disproportionately represented in the top creators lists. Sex work is how a lot of trans people have had to survive, and OF has made sex work much safer than it’s ever been. It would be a shame to lose an outlet like this — tempts me to go out and create one specifically for porn.
half the content, 85% of the money.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Crypto payments maybe? As a medium before it's sold back to USD/regular fiat.
I'm a cryptocurrency advocate, but for the average person transacting with crypto is still insanely intimidating and a pain to set up properly. Maybe paying with stablecoins could work but that is still a lot to ask of your users who are accustomed to paying for things with a credit card.
Want to buy something? Open a Coinbase or Gemini account, hook up ACH or wire transfers, wait a week for the deposit to be made, then send 'dollars' to this really long and complicated looking address. If you send it to the wrong address you are SOL.
Want to buy something? Open a Coinbase or Gemini account, hook up ACH or wire transfers, wait a week for the deposit to be made, then send 'dollars' to this really long and complicated looking address. If you send it to the wrong address you are SOL.
Yeah I'm saying you'd have a service that does that for you, moves the money from credit (OF sub) to crypto back to fiat for the user (OF creator). I also realize about costs too... but like with CBP if you transact a lot of volume the fees go down so you could build it up.
Well... I guess ultimately you still need that thing between the credit card and the service eg. stripe... idk if the porn thing is like a blanket protection against CP or something?
Well... I guess ultimately you still need that thing between the credit card and the service eg. stripe... idk if the porn thing is like a blanket protection against CP or something?
I think the most important thing would be wrapping the destination address around an easy to view label. Maybe only allow transactions to trusted/verified addresses for partner companies and services.
Crypto payments hasn't taken off yet. It's beyond the scope of most people's ability to pay in crypto.
To reach the masses you probably have to go with "know your customer" (KYC) requirements that are going to scare lots of people away when they have to upload photos of their passport and stuff like that to a website.
And governments and banks are going to impose the same restrictions somehow.
Unless they use a coin that is private, all transactions are going to be recorded in the blockchain and publicly viewable to everyone. Nobody wants their porn purchases to be public knowledge.
It will probably eventually get there but probably at least 5 years out.
To reach the masses you probably have to go with "know your customer" (KYC) requirements that are going to scare lots of people away when they have to upload photos of their passport and stuff like that to a website.
And governments and banks are going to impose the same restrictions somehow.
Unless they use a coin that is private, all transactions are going to be recorded in the blockchain and publicly viewable to everyone. Nobody wants their porn purchases to be public knowledge.
It will probably eventually get there but probably at least 5 years out.
> Nobody wants their porn purchases to be public knowledge.
I'm curious about that, I agree that you can trace transactions of a wallet, but can you figure out who a wallet belongs to?
I'm curious about that, I agree that you can trace transactions of a wallet, but can you figure out who a wallet belongs to?
IRS is leading the way with that. They do it by association and high probability that you own the wallet.
[deleted]
Sue Visa and MC for anti-trust and start working on crypto payments immediately.
Only thing that can compete with this is if pornhub decided to ban porn.
This is what happens when you have risk adverse execs getting paid too much.
The real reason is probably that "adult Patreon" probably isn't a sustainable business model. The incentive for famous influencers to scam users with photos and videos that are only technically nude is just too high, and that will result in charge backs galore.
Why are they shooting themselves in the foot?
Wasn't (soft) porn their business model?
Wasn't (soft) porn their business model?
Who's the first to makes a CryptoOnlyFans?
I see 2 losers here OnlyFans and the banks.
I see 2 losers here OnlyFans and the banks.
Wow, this is like if Apple said they were going to stop making iPhones.
Especially if you consider that you could just web search for free iPhones, ask your friends older brother to go buy some iPhones for you from the corner store, or work on your appearance and conversational skills and go get someone to give you a free iPhone IRL.
I never understood this subscriber minded concept of "Porn as a Service". Back in my day we'd just steal our dad's iPhone and share it among friends (assuming everyone took care of the iPhone and didn't spill any liquids on it). Even in the 80s and 90s you could just throw a rock and there was a 50% chance it'd land on an iPhone. It's even easier now, there's entire websites dedicated to hoarding images and videos of iPhones on various hosting sites. From an access-to-iPhone perspective, this is non-news. From a "MUH RIGHTS" perspective, I get why people are upset, but you also gotta see it from the billing perspective. It's their payment processing and they'll do with it what they want. But I mean ccBill exists and offers rates of 10-15%.. just earn less, I guess.
I never understood this subscriber minded concept of "Porn as a Service". Back in my day we'd just steal our dad's iPhone and share it among friends (assuming everyone took care of the iPhone and didn't spill any liquids on it). Even in the 80s and 90s you could just throw a rock and there was a 50% chance it'd land on an iPhone. It's even easier now, there's entire websites dedicated to hoarding images and videos of iPhones on various hosting sites. From an access-to-iPhone perspective, this is non-news. From a "MUH RIGHTS" perspective, I get why people are upset, but you also gotta see it from the billing perspective. It's their payment processing and they'll do with it what they want. But I mean ccBill exists and offers rates of 10-15%.. just earn less, I guess.
Let's make TrueFans ?
Digital pimpin' ain't easy. If it was, everyone would do it.
[deleted]
April 1st in August?
Anyone know if there are any legal recourse for them?
Lol i thought that was OnlyFans primary focus ??
[deleted]
What's next, twitch banning gaming?
Visa and MasterCard are pretty evil enterprises, and it's fairly inevitable at this point they will either need to be destroyed or regulated.
If it can happen to porn it can happen to crypto. History is a pendulum. Those who believe otherwise may be right, but nobody is right forever.
So they are shutting down the site?
Might as well just close up shop tomorrow; they’d keep more money that way rather than spending it all on servers and salary.
is this like Ford saying they're going to stop making vehicles?
Upcoming headline: "OnlyFans to close down business starting in November"
RIP: their biz model
They're done.
Is it today April 1st in any part of the world I'm not aware?
just create your next OnlyFans with Alvin5.com
What? This is the only reason people use onlyfans period…
I always thought that was their entire business model.
The thing I never understood:
The argument seems to be that "our payment partners don't like explicit content". I think the same excuse was thrown around for Tumblr's porn ban too.
* If this was a single (or small number of) player(s) objecting, why aren't they being competed around? Any payment platform that refuses to service the porn industry is, by its very nature, leaving money on the table.
* Again, if we're dealing with a centralized point of objection, I could see "name and shame" pushback being very effective. Imagine the backlash from both porn enthusiasts and libertarians closing their accounts if they said "It's XYZ Bank, they don't want you buying pornography."
* The worst-case scenario I could imagine is that it's at the card-brand level, driven by non-US/EU regulations. They can switch from (for example) Stripe to Braintree to Auth.net, but they can't escape Visa and Mastercard so easily. They might feel the need to regulate because it's required as a condition of market entry in, say, China or the Middle East.
But that still opens the door for domestic-focused alternatives (ACH? The old ATM-centric debit card networks?) In fact, in today's politically charged environment, I could see momentum to explicitly develop a payment product designed for "Western Sensibilites and Values" with an explicit "Hell no, it doesn't work in Beijing/Moscow/Baghdad" message. Suddenly, supporting pornography is a patriotic endeavour that you can use to demand special treatment and subsidy.
* Why now, when they're trying to go public? It's not like people suddenly woke up and said "OnlyFans had PORN?" If they maintained their relationships with their payment processors until now, it's not like there's a sudden, earth shattering revelation here.
I'm wondering if maybe the truth is less dramatic and grand. The angle I could see is that a hypothetical "OnlyFans - Porn" is a lower merchant risk profile than "OF as it stands". The high merchant fees for that industry are a well-established cost centre. If they could say "we slashed our merchant fees nn%" it looks good while preening the balance sheet for the IPO. However, I'm skeptical if that's the case-- any sort of "digital video delivery" and "subscription service" are still pretty high risk merchant types. I'd also think it's still less of a revenue risk to just split the business: a high-fee porn-only site and a cheaper-to-operate non-porn site, using shared technology.
The argument seems to be that "our payment partners don't like explicit content". I think the same excuse was thrown around for Tumblr's porn ban too.
* If this was a single (or small number of) player(s) objecting, why aren't they being competed around? Any payment platform that refuses to service the porn industry is, by its very nature, leaving money on the table.
* Again, if we're dealing with a centralized point of objection, I could see "name and shame" pushback being very effective. Imagine the backlash from both porn enthusiasts and libertarians closing their accounts if they said "It's XYZ Bank, they don't want you buying pornography."
* The worst-case scenario I could imagine is that it's at the card-brand level, driven by non-US/EU regulations. They can switch from (for example) Stripe to Braintree to Auth.net, but they can't escape Visa and Mastercard so easily. They might feel the need to regulate because it's required as a condition of market entry in, say, China or the Middle East.
But that still opens the door for domestic-focused alternatives (ACH? The old ATM-centric debit card networks?) In fact, in today's politically charged environment, I could see momentum to explicitly develop a payment product designed for "Western Sensibilites and Values" with an explicit "Hell no, it doesn't work in Beijing/Moscow/Baghdad" message. Suddenly, supporting pornography is a patriotic endeavour that you can use to demand special treatment and subsidy.
* Why now, when they're trying to go public? It's not like people suddenly woke up and said "OnlyFans had PORN?" If they maintained their relationships with their payment processors until now, it's not like there's a sudden, earth shattering revelation here.
I'm wondering if maybe the truth is less dramatic and grand. The angle I could see is that a hypothetical "OnlyFans - Porn" is a lower merchant risk profile than "OF as it stands". The high merchant fees for that industry are a well-established cost centre. If they could say "we slashed our merchant fees nn%" it looks good while preening the balance sheet for the IPO. However, I'm skeptical if that's the case-- any sort of "digital video delivery" and "subscription service" are still pretty high risk merchant types. I'd also think it's still less of a revenue risk to just split the business: a high-fee porn-only site and a cheaper-to-operate non-porn site, using shared technology.
Unexpected.
Isn't that the point of their site?
> OnlyFans to block profit starting in October
ftfy
ftfy
Goodbye OnlyFans
solmag(1)
I have zero sympathy.
Next up
Google blocks search and Twitter blocks politics
Google blocks search and Twitter blocks politics
Isnt that kind of ridiculous?
If there is a case for cancel culture, free speech or capitalism issue, this sounds like it. Few powerful players systematically destroying speech and business because they don't like it.
If there is a case for cancel culture, free speech or capitalism issue, this sounds like it. Few powerful players systematically destroying speech and business because they don't like it.
(Conservative ∩ Woke) == {e : e ∊ (bland ⋃ tedious)}
L O fucking L. That's literally what it's for.
Congrats on making the dumbest business decision ever made!
Where are you supposed to go to find interesting images now? Asking for a friend.
[deleted]
OnlyFans is going to pivot from streamers pretending to fuck themselves to VCs actually fucking themselves
"The company will prohibit users from posting any sexually explicit conduct, starting in October. Creators will still be allowed to post nude photos and videos"
Makes sense
Makes sense
> Makes sense
Does it?
Nude is ok, but sexual isn’t? What if I find nude sexual, what if I find sexual separate from nudity? Why business is it of payment processors to say what is OK when it comes to sexuality?
Does it?
Nude is ok, but sexual isn’t? What if I find nude sexual, what if I find sexual separate from nudity? Why business is it of payment processors to say what is OK when it comes to sexuality?
lol, mate you seem personally offended by this satirical statement pointing out the conflicting logic
The winner here is a majority of OF performers who are mortgaging their future reputation for present small payouts.
Good.
Onlyfans is extremely exploitative, and part of the business model is to groom underage girls into doing pornography. There have been many news reports of only fans ignoring reports that underage girls are selling pornography of themselves on their website; something which onlyfans profits off of.
They are pimps, and seem to be okay with pimping out children and encouraging children to enter the sex trade. I hope that some of them end up in prison.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57255983.amp
Onlyfans is extremely exploitative, and part of the business model is to groom underage girls into doing pornography. There have been many news reports of only fans ignoring reports that underage girls are selling pornography of themselves on their website; something which onlyfans profits off of.
They are pimps, and seem to be okay with pimping out children and encouraging children to enter the sex trade. I hope that some of them end up in prison.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57255983.amp
Quite a sad state that we're in when this true and insightful comment has been voted to the bottom of the entire reply section
With all the focus on "local" now, maybe society just needs to go back to good ol' fashioned red light districts with brothels where Johns can make cash payments to the Madams that credit card companies and Apple/Google Pay can't block. Instead of paying with a credit card to see pixelated computer-screen boobies that are 3000 miles away, maybe just go to a local "gentleman's club" and see actual in-the-flesh nude women or something, ya know?
The winner here might actually be the majority of NSFW content makers on OF who are mortgaging their future reputations for very small payouts.
(not a judgment on what they do but the reality of the situation)
(not a judgment on what they do but the reality of the situation)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28237274&p=2
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28237274&p=3
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28237274&p=4
(Comments like this will go away when we turn off pagination. Sorry for the annoyance.)