10 ms·

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 st

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://onlyfans.com/nathanflorence https://dailycaller.com/2021/06/17/onlyfans-pivot-porn-backing-become-mainstream-platform/ https://dailycaller.com/2021/06/17/onlyfans-pivot-porn-backi...

bamboozled 5y ago
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.
- nintendo1889 5y ago
  Plus it's behind a login.
- kondro 5y ago
  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-prohibit-sexually-explicit-content-porn-creators https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632797/onlyfans-prohibi...
  - account42 5y ago
    > 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.
    - namelessoracle 5y ago
      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.
    - ryantgtg 5y ago
      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.
- chelmertz 5y ago
  >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?
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    Is it not okay for women to sell their labor, services, performances, to anybody they choose to?
  - stevula 5y ago
    There are plenty of men with OnlyFans channels.
    - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
      And there are plenty of women willing to pay other women to do things as well.
  - vladmk 5y ago
    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.
- smokey_circles 5y ago
  >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)
  - eru 5y ago
    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.
    - uCantCauseUCant 5y ago
      That party is deeply secular. Which is why this alternative formed: https://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partei_Bibeltreuer_Christen https://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partei_Bibeltreuer_Christen
    - Vosporos 5y ago
      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-longer-illegal-uk-long-performers-consenting-155930303.html https://uk.news.yahoo.com/violent-porn-including-bdsm-no-lon...
    - arethuza 5y ago
      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).
- iheartlife 5y ago
  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
  - gambiting 5y ago
    That's still stupid - surely the solution is to moderate better, not to literally kill the company.
    - jjk166 5y ago
      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.
  - kwere 5y ago
    And thats why payment processors should be a public utility
    - notahacker 5y ago
      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
      - kwere 5y ago
        you could still have your public provider and a private provider with added services
      - Chris2048 5y ago
- bakuninsbart 5y ago
  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-content/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/19/onlyfans-bans-explicit-con...
- fennecfoxy 5y ago
  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.
- danudey 5y ago
  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.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Also, the overwhelming majority of adults consume pornography. To pretend otherwise at this point is a ludicrous farce.
  - OrangeMusic 5y ago
    Source?
Cullinet 5y ago
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?

bamboozled 5y ago

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.

nintendo1889 5y ago
Plus it's behind a login.
kondro 5y ago
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-prohibit-sexually-explicit-content-porn-creators https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/19/22632797/onlyfans-prohibi...
- account42 5y ago
  > 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.
  - namelessoracle 5y ago
    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.
  - ryantgtg 5y ago
    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.
chelmertz 5y ago
>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?
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Is it not okay for women to sell their labor, services, performances, to anybody they choose to?
- stevula 5y ago
  There are plenty of men with OnlyFans channels.
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    And there are plenty of women willing to pay other women to do things as well.
- vladmk 5y ago
  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.
smokey_circles 5y ago
>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)
- eru 5y ago
  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.
  - uCantCauseUCant 5y ago
    That party is deeply secular. Which is why this alternative formed: https://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partei_Bibeltreuer_Christen https://nds.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partei_Bibeltreuer_Christen
  - Vosporos 5y ago
    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-longer-illegal-uk-long-performers-consenting-155930303.html https://uk.news.yahoo.com/violent-porn-including-bdsm-no-lon...
  - arethuza 5y ago
    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).
iheartlife 5y ago
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
- gambiting 5y ago
  That's still stupid - surely the solution is to moderate better, not to literally kill the company.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    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.
- kwere 5y ago
  And thats why payment processors should be a public utility
  - notahacker 5y ago
    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
    - kwere 5y ago
      you could still have your public provider and a private provider with added services
    - Chris2048 5y ago
bakuninsbart 5y ago
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-content/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/19/onlyfans-bans-explicit-con...
fennecfoxy 5y ago
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.
danudey 5y ago
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.
ashtonkem 5y ago
Also, the overwhelming majority of adults consume pornography. To pretend otherwise at this point is a ludicrous farce.
- OrangeMusic 5y ago
  Source?

Cullinet 5y ago

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?