7 ms·
OnlyFans might want to look into the legal implications. I could imagine a class action law suit where the company is sued for fraud on the basis that it is se
by game_the0ry 2y ago
OnlyFans might want to look into the legal implications.
I could imagine a class action law suit where the company is sued for fraud on the basis that it is selling real interactions with models.
OnlyFans user should know better, but you could make the case they were defrauded for services (in this case, interaction with the model).
- ta_1138 2y agoOnlyFans chat operator has been a job for quite a while. It is well documented, with news exposes and everything. So if OnlyFans wants to protect themselves from a lawsuit on impersonation, the horses left the barn years ago.
- KumaBear 2y agoA class action lawsuit alleges OnlyFans has deceived subscribers who, unbeknownst to them, communicate with paid chatters, and not actual creators themselves.
- lambdasquirrel 2y agoFor how much these creators get paid per fan per month, does one really expect anything else? It’s not hard to imagine that many of them would be paid less than minimum wage if they actually responded to all their messages. But that much isn’t really that much different from the rest of the creator / gig economy.
- account42 2y agoPerhaps "less than minimum wage" is justified for the offering though? Most industries struggle to compete with free, that doesn't justify deception.
- SoftTalker 2y agoDoes it really matter? The only question should be, did it get you off? If it did, you got what you paid for.
- game_the0ry 2y agoFor a person who expects to talk directly to a creator, especially when being asked for money, I would say that it would matter. And I am sure there are many men who believe they are talking to the creator and not a chatter or bot.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y agohttps://www.classaction.org/news/onlyfans-lawsuit-alleges-subscribers-unknowingly-talk-with-paid-chatters-not-actual-content-creators https://www.classaction.org/news/onlyfans-lawsuit-alleges-su...
- Invictus0 2y agoOnlyFans is just the platform, it's the creators that are doing the deception.
- lesuorac 2y agoCan't be that much legal risk considering AshleyMadison.com is still around.
- rsynnott 2y agoWasn't that just dating/hookups for people in relationships? Not seeing a fraud angle there.
- sergent_moon 2y agoA majority of the women on that site were bots. That's the fraud part.
- bena 2y agoI would say that’s a risk for the individual models. OnlyFans provides a platform for creators to distribute content and collect payment. What content they provide is up to the creators. Which is why it became a de facto porn site in the first place. They essentially AirBudded the site: “well the rules don’t say I can’t show hole”. And since it was the only thing in the site getting traction, they turned a blind eye to it. But I don’t think OnlyFans ever promised subscribers any particular interaction.
- yakshaving_jgt 2y agoThere will be no lawsuit. This kind of work long predates OF. Premium sex chat SMS services were doing the same thing at least a decade before OF existed.
- csomar 2y agoLawsuits are based on the probability of being able to extract and its amount; not the relevance of the claim or the morality of it. Given that Onlyfans is moving billions, it's probably only a matter of time before they start getting their share of lawsuits.
- EGreg 2y agoHm seems one was already filed so… you’re wrong https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41879574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41879574 I was surprised the Tates were bragging in great detail about doing that years ago and no one seems to care that they defrauded men out of millions
- yakshaving_jgt 2y agoIndeed, I was 100% wrong. That’s a really interesting link. Thanks for sharing!
- EGreg 2y agoBy the way the Tates have just the other day rugpulled many of their followers AGAIN — in a different way: https://x.com/gadget44027447/status/1860339419020231071?s=46&t=6NqVriDzUg62-oO7pw1olA https://x.com/gadget44027447/status/1860339419020231071?s=46...
- edm0nd 2y agoThis. I used to spam thirsty dudes on AOL/AIM/Yahoo Chat/MSN Messenger with a chatbot with prompts to convert them to porn website sales in the 90s. I made 6 figures one year. It wasnt even AI, just if else shit and looking for keywords in their messages and then reply X or Y lol. One of my favorite quotes: Never underestimate the stupidity of a man with his dick in one hand and his wallet in the other.
- tejohnso 2y agoCouldn't they add something in their TOS indicating that AI assistance is common and they aren't responsible for what their content creators do? What if they spin the service as "an experience" rather than specifically about interaction with a model? And who'se to say that a model has to be a live model anyway?
- KumaBear 2y agoIt’s just Tim down the block. I’d love it if they had to put a disclaimer at the very least if they are using any services.
- dragonwriter 2y ago> Couldn’t they add something in their TOS indicating that AI assistance is common and they aren’t responsible for what their content creators do? They (1) do have a policy (and separate standardized fan/creator contract) about their limited responsibility for fan/creator interactions, and that contract includes a fan acknowledgement that creators may use third-party assistance in interactions, but also (2) a policy that requires creator to explicitly disclose any AI-created content as AI-created.
- ivanmontillam 2y agoYou mean... one like this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41879574 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41879574
- bigstrat2003 2y ago> OnlyFans user should know better... If OnlyFans users were thinking straight they wouldn't be wasting money on a model who doesn't care about them to begin with. I don't really know that I would expect them to do the math on their own on this one.
- throw838499 2y ago[flagged]
- lelandbatey 2y agoIf you think marriage is remotely comparable to paying a model to pretend to talk to you, well then that's... certainly something. Good luck out there I guess
- throw838499 2y agoMarriage does not guarantee companionship. Wife has no obligations to provide anything.
- lelandbatey 2y agoYou're quite right. And I never said otherwise. I'll reiterate and expand: a marriage of equals is just fundamentally not comparable to an economic exchange for sex work. Hence, stating as you did that > If OnlyFans users were thinking straight they wouldn't be wasting money on a model who doesn't care about them to begin with. >> You could say that about marriage as well. OnlyFans are quite cheap in a big picture. You seem to be implying that marriage is a similar or at least comparable institution to being a sex worker. Which misses the point of being married so completely that... well I hardly know what to say. Good luck out there.
- throw838499 2y agoI was reacting to comment that says OF does not make economical sense, yet people do it. Marriage is similar. And sadly for many women marriage is a sex work. Men come into marriage with expectation of sex. I do not understand why people promote this ancient tool to enslave, oppress, and impregnate women!
- magicalhippo 2y ago> selling real interactions with models For some value of real... At least a stripper is actually there in front of you.
- vasco 2y agoBut she's also there in front of you. I don't think people grasp how dissonant social isolation can be. I know a couple of guys that are sorta hikikomori and they both want human contact as well as don't want it. They would not enjoy at all to be in the strip club to leave the house, for people to be around. They just want to consume the same content but with some personalization like her saying their name. It's quite strange and I think we'll get many more people like this over time if we don't change something.
- throwaway2037 2y ago> I think we'll get many more people like this over time if we don't change something. What is equally puzzling to me: "No one" is talking about what happens to women after they decide to stop doing sex work (I consider any sexual content on OF as sex work). What are the mental effects? Are they able to form meaningful, healthy, long-lasting relationships? I doubt it. Also, does it have effect on their employability?
- kobalsky 2y agoit may seem similar to a stripper or an escort but onlyfans is not just selling nudity or porn, they are selling faux relationships.
- dragonwriter 2y ago> it may seem similar to a stripper or an escort but onlyfans is not just selling nudity or porn, they are selling faux relationships. The “but” there suggests you don’t really understand the things you are comparing to OF. The illusion of companionship has always been a major part of those in-person services.
- tanewishly 2y agoOh come on. Its not as if they're showing you photos of what those folks look like in real life either. If you expect realism from an adult entertainment site, you might as well go buy a bridge or two.
- devnullbrain 2y agoUsing historical advice, if you expect nude photos you post of yourself on the internet to stay private, you might as well go buy a bridge or two. Oh, but they do. And they will sue to keep it that way. I don't think being dismissive of consumer rights just because it deals with something icky is wise. We need to be able to have adult discussions about adult content - a lack of this is why the internet has been quietly filled with porn of dubious consent featuring models of dubious ages for the past 20 years.
- soygem 2y agoNo typical OF consumer could do anything. Productive people who can file lolsuits don't jack off to screens.
- popcalc 2y agoClearly you haven't met many attorneys.
- hankchinaski 2y agoThere is and has been for a while, an entire industry behind OF management, mass messages, paid chat operators and what not. AI is just making it easier to run the whole thing on autopilot at the expense of the ”fans”
- dragonwriter 2y ago> OnlyFans might want to look into the legal implications. Pretty sure they have. > I could imagine a class action law suit where the company is sued for fraud on the basis that it is selling real interactions with models. They fairly explicitly are not, as (1) they aren’t selling the creator services, that’s explicitly (as agreed to by fans in their agreement with OF) a separate (standardized) contract between the fan and the creator, and (2) that standardized contract includes an agreement that the fan acknowledges that the creator may employ third parties to assist with interactions, and, as regards AI content specifically, (3) AI generated content is required by the terms imposed on creators to be explicitly labelled, where it is allowed. > But you could make the case they were defrauded for services (in this case, interaction with the model). IF a particular representation around a particular interaction evidenced a special promise with regard to that interaction beyond the standard contract, maybe, by the creator, and in violation of OF’s explicit terms for creators prohibiting false and misleading representations.