> the merchant chooses how much personal info they want or need to collect, and Apple Pay doesn’t prevent them from asking you for that at checkout.
Does this happen when shopping in-person?
> of course that info would be there! In this example, my checkout page was for a physical item so I needed the customer’s shipping info.
They don't need my name and address if I'm buying eggs in a grocery store. Does Apple/Google require my consent to share that info when it's obviously not required? Is it similar to a terms & conditions, or shrink-wrapped EULA? (ie take it or leave it)
"Open-source developer infrastructure for internal tools (APIs, background jobs, workflows and UIs). Self-hostable alternative to Airplane, Pipedream, Superblocks and a simplified Temporal with autogenerated UIsm and custom UIs to trigger workflows and scripts as internal apps.
Scripts are turned into sharable UIs automatically, and can be composed together into flows or used into richer apps built with low-code. Supported script languages supported are: Python, TypeScript, Go, Bash, SQL, and GraphQL. "
If you search HN, you'll find the creator of Windmill comment on comparisons to airplane.dev:
> Spent literal hours on it collecting citations and what have you. Within a couple hours the page was deleted
> No chance to explain. No chance to reword. Just gone completely
I've had the same experience. It requires too little effort to dump other people's contributions. I don't understand the super users' motivations in cases like this.
> And he clearly doesn't reference the article with the hook 'problem', he keeps it generic: "(the girl selling and the guy buying)"
They are clearly responding to the article, which is about fraudulent use of the chat feature to extract money from men. It's not about selling pictures or videos.
You seem to be taking all of this as a personal attack on your choice of entertainment, or to create division in the thread.
> I wonder if society should step in to prevent those men from getting hooked.
Clear disclosure and consent is required.
If the person paying for this feature knew it was just roleplay with a person pretending to be the model, I don't think any reasonable person would have an issue with it.
very odd comment, and from a brand new account. Makes me wonder what your motivations are.
You didn't address anything in the parent comment. You seem to be responding to onlyfans in general, not the fraudulent usage of the chat feature the parent comment is addressing.
Imagine if dating apps paid you to keep your profile active even if you have no interest in meeting anyone. They pay you $5/month per match with a minimum of 5 messages before ghosting. It keeps lonely men on the platform. For some people, OnlyFans chat is no different.
There should be clear disclosures that there is potential the other account is outsourced to a different person, or a LLM.
I'm having trouble finding it now, but I recall there being a rumor that the Bumble CEO was fired for permitting fake accounts to exist, so that usage appeared high. I think it had to do with allowing virtual phone numbers
EDIT: Wow.... there are a lot people in this thread pushing back on the parent comment suggesting outsourced model chats are immoral, or not an ethical way to make a living.
your comment was about "Americans" generally. Not about Americans you know.
pointlessly divisive, stereotyping nationality, and without merit. exactly the type of comment we need less of on HN. I replied because it prevents you from deleting the comment.
EDIT:
ah, I see that they are now replying with a random article found after hastily searching for sources to confirm their bias with commentary from * squints * a "financial therapist." A CNBC article that is a submarine (as coined by PG[1]), meant to advertise OppLoans.
don't believe me? see all the articles written by CNBC for OppLoans:
I'm 100% ok with this. I have the choice of using a Visa/MC gift card I bought with cash. Same as I can do with Netflix. Better than linking a unique ID I use everywhere else.
I think what bugs me the most is that there's no direct need for the phone. It's reasonable to give my phone number to a doctor's office because I need to hear from them over the phone.
could be. I think it's mainly the phone number requirement within the past few years. The bad accounts have washed out. It's also likely why Google will soon delete old inactive accounts, created before this policy.
"our staff also developed a tool called ARTEMIS, which stands for the Advanced Relational Trading Enforcement Metrics Investigation System. This initiative analyzes suspicious trading patterns and relationships among multiple traders and uses the Division’s electronic database of over 6 billion electronic equities and options trading records."
https://nitter.poast.org/AviSchiffmann/status/18182898106471...
https://x.com/AviSchiffmann/status/1818289810647191685