Dismissing people critical of the porn industry as "anti-porn puritans" is certainly not helping your argument nor doing justice to all the people who have to deal with the consequences of the victimization of women in these 'industries', something the clientele never cares about of course.
This article seemed to be about a number of issues, not so much about the content.
Maybe onlyfans does these things (i have no idea) and its not 100%, people will still get hacked but things that come to mind:
* have educational material on how to secure your account (they probably have the only audience in the world that would actually read something like that)
* rate limits/login captcha/etc
*Handle suspicious logins (diff geoip) differently
* password requirements (not the stupid one symbol thing, but the ban every password that has ever appeared in haveibeenpwnd version)
*making it easier for people with hacked accounts to get meaningful help. Response is just as important as prevention.
*mandatory 2fa (people who willingly use 2fa are usually people who have strong passwords and benefit the least)
Onlyfans is in an industry with a higher threat profile than average tech company, they should have a higher account security standard.
BBC could have done a bit more to summarize calls to action instead of helping readers conflate multiple issues with preexisting biases. It is also a pretty decent reality for what creators can expect, right now. But, despite that I felt it was decently balanced. They accurately say the site has associations and can be used for other things.
Just saying Youtube, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and others have the same issues would have been useful.