5 ms·

Yes: > “The proposed Oct. 1, 2021 changes are no longer required due to banking partners’ assurances that OnlyFans can support all genres of creators,” [an Onl

Yes: > “The proposed Oct. 1, 2021 changes are no longer required due to banking partners’ assurances that OnlyFans can support all genres of creators,” [an OnlyFans spokesperson] said. https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/onlyfans-drops-porn-ban-sexually-explicit-policy-1235048705/ https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/onlyfans-drops-porn-ba... The Variety article theorizes that the backlash may have actually been exactly the outcome OnlyFans wanted, because they were able to focus public outrage toward the banks and payment processors putting them in that position.

brundolf 5y ago
I'm honestly surprised the market forces are strong enough that the banks have to care about the bad PR at all Nobody wants to change banks even when it affects them directly. How many people are going to change banks out of principle? I guess some Gen Zers might be motivated not to pick Chase as their first bank?
- chipotle_coyote 5y ago
  I don't have great answers to that, although I think by "banking partners" they actually mean "credit card companies" and most specifically mean MasterCard, which (assuming reporting on this I've read is correct) was or may still be in the process of further tightening their policies around adult content. Well, a not-great but plausible answer, maybe -- companies make changes, both good and ill, because they're panicked over PR fiascos all the time. From all appearances, MasterCard announced those policy changes because of PR pressure that was put on them by "Exodus Cry," a fundamentalist Christian anti-porn activist group. OnlyFans may have calculated that their best bet was to knock Exodus Cry off their hashtag-save-the-children pedestal.
  - skohan 5y ago
    Honestly that seems even more far-fetched. Visa and MasterCard are essentially a duopoly. Where on earth are customers going to flee to on bad pr?
    - vageli 5y ago
      This seems like a good use case for crypto currencies.
      - skohan 5y ago
        Realistically it would take decades, or great strides in usability, for cryptocurrency to really reach the main stream to the point it could be considered a serious alternative for credit cards.
        vageli 5y ago
        Could you speak more to the areas in usability that you find currentl lacking?
        disruptthelaw 5y ago
        Let’s say OF was forced to switch to crypto payments. They could make the switch tomorrow. Link to a few popular crypto exchanges so that customers know where to buy crypto and Bob’s your uncle.
        skohan 5y ago
        How long until their customer service system gets flooded with questions about how to use cryptocurrency, and complaints from users who's funds got stolen from XYZ shady exchange. 99% of normal people find cryptocurrency strange and inscrutable, and if you think otherwise you're in a bubble.
    - rodgerd 5y ago
      Customers may not flee, but: 1. Customers in e.g. the EU may push their reps to "do something" about two US companies controlling all e-commerce. 2. Customers frustrated that Mastercard have gone on the record as refusing to block payments to terrorist-supporting orgs while refusing to process payments to look at titties may pressure regulators to start having a much closer look at Mastercard's money flows. Both of those seem like meaningful concerns.
  - brundolf 5y ago
    No, they called out specific banks, including Chase
- _coveredInBees 5y ago
  I think a factor that they may be concerned about is that there is a large userbase that is spending a lot of money on OF and that they may very well all just move to BTC or some other cryptocurrency based solution to exchanging money. And once that happens, you have a younger generation that is more comfortable dabbling in making financial transactions without the banks being involved.
  - throwawaylolx 5y ago
    This just sounds like wishful thinking from cryptocurrency enthusiasts. There is no precedent of this happening, so I doubt they were so terrified about a completely hypothetical scenario.
    - _coveredInBees 5y ago
      There also hasn't been a precedent for a platform that has a large userbase spending hundreds of millions of dollars on sex workers being abruptly cut off by payment providers with no other recourse to processing payments from their userbase. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- akiselev 5y ago
  Pretty much the only threat to the Visa/Mastercard duopoly is public awareness that leads to antitrust enforcement. They're usually immune to any kind of backlash but this seemed to strike a cord with many people who are frustrated with America's puritanism (myself included). I don't have a dog in this fight but it certainly reminded me how much power V+MC have to become an existential threat along the likes of Google and Spectrum. Next time I write to my Congressman about antitrust, I'll be sure to put them top of the list now (for all that's going to do...)
meowface 5y ago
I've seen so many different grand theories proposed in this thread, but to me this seems like it was the most obvious one from the start. My guess: yes, it was intended to achieve an effect; no, it wasn't built on false pretenses / a viral marketing stunt / a way to avoid negative press from the BBC. It was probably a way for them to respond to escalating pressure from financial intermediaries with some pressure of their own.

brundolf 5y ago

I'm honestly surprised the market forces are strong enough that the banks have to care about the bad PR at all Nobody wants to change banks even when it affects them directly. How many people are going to change banks out of principle? I guess some Gen Zers might be motivated not to pick Chase as their first bank?

chipotle_coyote 5y ago
I don't have great answers to that, although I think by "banking partners" they actually mean "credit card companies" and most specifically mean MasterCard, which (assuming reporting on this I've read is correct) was or may still be in the process of further tightening their policies around adult content. Well, a not-great but plausible answer, maybe -- companies make changes, both good and ill, because they're panicked over PR fiascos all the time. From all appearances, MasterCard announced those policy changes because of PR pressure that was put on them by "Exodus Cry," a fundamentalist Christian anti-porn activist group. OnlyFans may have calculated that their best bet was to knock Exodus Cry off their hashtag-save-the-children pedestal.
- skohan 5y ago
  Honestly that seems even more far-fetched. Visa and MasterCard are essentially a duopoly. Where on earth are customers going to flee to on bad pr?
  - vageli 5y ago
    This seems like a good use case for crypto currencies.
    - skohan 5y ago
      Realistically it would take decades, or great strides in usability, for cryptocurrency to really reach the main stream to the point it could be considered a serious alternative for credit cards.
      - vageli 5y ago
        Could you speak more to the areas in usability that you find currentl lacking?
      - disruptthelaw 5y ago
        Let’s say OF was forced to switch to crypto payments. They could make the switch tomorrow. Link to a few popular crypto exchanges so that customers know where to buy crypto and Bob’s your uncle.
        skohan 5y ago
        How long until their customer service system gets flooded with questions about how to use cryptocurrency, and complaints from users who's funds got stolen from XYZ shady exchange. 99% of normal people find cryptocurrency strange and inscrutable, and if you think otherwise you're in a bubble.
  - rodgerd 5y ago
    Customers may not flee, but: 1. Customers in e.g. the EU may push their reps to "do something" about two US companies controlling all e-commerce. 2. Customers frustrated that Mastercard have gone on the record as refusing to block payments to terrorist-supporting orgs while refusing to process payments to look at titties may pressure regulators to start having a much closer look at Mastercard's money flows. Both of those seem like meaningful concerns.
- brundolf 5y ago
  No, they called out specific banks, including Chase
_coveredInBees 5y ago
I think a factor that they may be concerned about is that there is a large userbase that is spending a lot of money on OF and that they may very well all just move to BTC or some other cryptocurrency based solution to exchanging money. And once that happens, you have a younger generation that is more comfortable dabbling in making financial transactions without the banks being involved.
- throwawaylolx 5y ago
  This just sounds like wishful thinking from cryptocurrency enthusiasts. There is no precedent of this happening, so I doubt they were so terrified about a completely hypothetical scenario.
  - _coveredInBees 5y ago
    There also hasn't been a precedent for a platform that has a large userbase spending hundreds of millions of dollars on sex workers being abruptly cut off by payment providers with no other recourse to processing payments from their userbase. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
akiselev 5y ago
Pretty much the only threat to the Visa/Mastercard duopoly is public awareness that leads to antitrust enforcement. They're usually immune to any kind of backlash but this seemed to strike a cord with many people who are frustrated with America's puritanism (myself included). I don't have a dog in this fight but it certainly reminded me how much power V+MC have to become an existential threat along the likes of Google and Spectrum. Next time I write to my Congressman about antitrust, I'll be sure to put them top of the list now (for all that's going to do...)

meowface 5y ago

I've seen so many different grand theories proposed in this thread, but to me this seems like it was the most obvious one from the start. My guess: yes, it was intended to achieve an effect; no, it wasn't built on false pretenses / a viral marketing stunt / a way to avoid negative press from the BBC. It was probably a way for them to respond to escalating pressure from financial intermediaries with some pressure of their own.