I honestly did not know they did anything besides porn. They have a really bad marketing department as I bet most people only know of them via porn (or I run in a slightly more degenerate circle).
https://onlyfans.com/nathanflorence https://dailycaller.com/2021/06/17/onlyfans-pivot-porn-backi...
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.
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-prohibi...
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.
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?
If you can flip it and it sounds right then you can’t have it both ways, that’s hypocritical.
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)
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.
I'm not sure how requiring age check relates to being non-secular either. I'm not religious, but I don't think children should watch porn.
So in many areas UK has less freedoms than poor authoritarian countries. I cant say anything about Germany since I havent lived there.
cryptocurrency? Revenue taxes crypto gains so I doubt that.
> almost all fintech companies will ban your account
I believe revolut operates in the UK and allows you to trade in btc.
And what do you suggest to use? Trade crypto to cash? And then how will I put said cash on bank account without getting on check list?
In UK even if you have 1000 GBP in cash they look at you like you're drug dealer.
> I believe revolut operates in the UK and allows you to trade in btc.
Revolut itself is shady and at least until recently didnt have or used any banking license in UK. And it's can ban you at any moment for no reason.
And Germany is far from secular too - for example church taxes (even if you can opt out) are still collected via the government. There is also much more censorship in video games than in most other countries.
Or use a better ISP.
In other news US post office caught delivering mail to churches, synagogues and mosques. Religious conspiracy or completely normal?
> even if you can opt out
You had to be opted in in the first place, you don't get randomly assigned to one of the religious groups that signed up for that service.
> There is also much more censorship in video games than in most other countries.
Gotta love how quickly school shooters got blamed on video games. Can't blame the government, can't blame the poor parents who were barely even aware of their kids existence in the months leading up to the shooting, lets blame and censor games the kid never played.
You have GOT to be joking!
Do you not see the difference between the government delivering postal mail to everyone, and the government collecting money for churches only - money that you have to explicitly opt-out of giving?
Will the government collect debts that other people owe me? Hell, no! So why should the government collecting church taxes for them?
I would be quite a bit richer if the government collected only church taxes. Would have been nice if I could have opted out of paying for that mess in Afghanistan.
> Will the government collect debts that other people owe me?
No, but maybe you could start a movement to have it recognize other, non religious, groups for this service.
Is it true that torrent sites are blocked for adults and consensual BDSM like spanking is considered illegal pornography?
I can't really believe it till I hear it from a person.
I had no idea. This completely changes my view of the UK and the world suddenly seems much darker.
Yes, there's an overlap there, but your use of the expression "a ban on religion in the political space" highlights the problem. To frame it first as a political problem in the sense of political parties and professional politicians misses where the harm is being done; and to expand the definition of "political space" in your ban to include private financial operators would ban religion entirely.
And that's also not possible to do while calling yourself a free country.
I'm certainly not anti-religious (I'm no atheist myself), but I'm very anti-moral crusading against the business of consenting adults whatever form it takes.
Powerful "Blame your political opponents" move and damn those Chesterton fences.
On a more serious note, it is not just porn and it's all about gene survival.
Men who do not care about the sexual freedom of their partners tend to got the way of Dodo. (for obvious reasons).
But I grant you that they may a live a more pleasant and relaxed life.
I can't speak for others, but my partner and I have a monogamous relationship because we like each other. We don't need government coercion.
(edited to make it sound less ominous)
Religions are just old ideologies centered on an anthropomorphic metaphor. It's not possible to exist without ideology -- even if it's something neoliberal and pared-down.
And, people will create institutions to provide them with additional structure, if the State isn't giving it to them. They'll organize around a priest, or a VP of DEI; they'll choose a holy book (Atlas Shrugged, the Koran, Das Kapital), and so on. And, lo and behold, those alternative structures will start coercing people too.
> prohibits sexual freedom
The older I get, the more I think "freedom" is a trap. What is the alcoholic's freedom to drink? The procrastinator's freedom to watch YouTube videos?
Odysseus, before sailing past the Sirens, was wise enough to ask his sailors to tie him to the mast.
I know you say you're self-motivated, but how many of you would really accomplish much without at least a little pressure from a boss, from perf review, or from your peers at least? "But I'm the CEO!", you say. Well, do you ever work harder as you prep for a board meeting?
I will do a dangerous thing now and, although essentially secular, make an Old Testament reference: What of Onan's freedom from responsibility for Tamar (i.e., his choice to leave her abandoned after Er's death), freedom from responsibility for the children he would have had with her? (People have myopically and stupidly focused on the "mechanics" of that story while missing the point.)
What if the consequences of your "freedom" don't hit you for many years? What if, as an individual, you simply don't have enough time in your life to make the mistake and learn from it?
I know a few people who were "free" to completely fuck up their lives, and they're belatedly figuring it out now, usually when it's too late.
Freedom is a very multifaceted word. On one hand, it means being free from coercion from others to do or not do what you want. On the other, it also means being free to do what you want without being forced into it by your own mind.
Most people have no freedom over their own minds, they would be slaves even if no laws applied to them and they had infinite money. Restricting physical freedom to guide those people even makes sense, as I would say those people are the majority.
But why the fuck would I accept that? I choose what I do and what I feel, why should I submit to others rules "for my own good" when my own mind has shown itself capable of choosing the correct option even when it hurts? Why should I limit my potential so every idiot who can't go 5 seconds without his little dopamine hits won't find a way to kill himself by the time he's 40? Why are the lives of the unaccomplished masses more important than my own?
Admittedly, this isn't a huge problem in my life, since to quote the New Testament, "if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move". Yet I feel like this kind of paternalism stunts the growth of those who would one day learn true freedom from themselves too. If you are shepherded into behaving, you do not learn why one must behave that way.
The context of your quote is especially apt for a discussion of (structure as a defense against) addiction, since it's about a man who was, in the understanding of the day, "possessed by a demon", and who was cured.
Now -- this is sort of an aside -- I'll admit that my first reaction to
> this isn't a huge problem in my life, since [Bible quote about how, with faith, anything is possible]
was negative, because it felt like how my mental caricature of an Evangelical (note acceptable prejudice) would brag ("look how much faith I have"). As was my reaction to
> Why should I limit my potential [...]? Why are the lives of the unaccomplished masses more important than my own?
which had more ego than... my culture teaches to put out there.
But, to look for the important point, it was that if someone were to really go all in on Christianity (in the "radical" sense), instead of just keeping it at arm's length and looking for some wisdom here and there (my approach -- and borrowing not just from Christianity), then they'd start with faith, not the thing I'm calling structure, because -- the idea goes -- all the good deeds, all the behaviors, and so on, stem from faith; if you really believe, the rest will follow.
Or, using "Law" as a synonym for "structure", there is Galatians 3:23-26, which seems very on-the-nose:
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Anyway, long story short, I think I see your point, which -- unless I have just projected a whole ton of additional meanings -- would be to emphasize Faith.
(That, I'm afraid, may be beyond me.)
Yes. Structure can turn an animal into a man, but only faith can elevate him above that.
I do not much like the word faith, as it evokes in me the image of the "Christian faithful" all praying on their knees, hoping for a better future if they follow everything the two-faced priest says. Ultimately it achieves nothing, as blind structure following without feeling for anything deeper than that within yourself is a soulless activity. If you couldn't tell from those last two sentences, I'm not actually Christian. I have rather strong feelings towards them, since I have seen them pull the greatest trick of all: convincing the masses that religion is extrinsically rather than intrinsically motivated. "Faith" nowadays is orthopraxy.
The world is much more complicated than that, of course, and it is not the Christians who did it, or anyone in particular in my opinion. Religion is as much spiritualism as culture, and Western faith before them was explicitly orthopractic. But I feel much more at home criticizing a religion I have experienced, rather than far off ones.
As to my Matthew quote: it has a lot of meaning to me. It is the expression of a universal truth, that true faith (or true will, or spirit, the alchemist's gold and so on and so forth) is the power to change oneself, and thus change the world. Admittedly, the full story (Jesus heals the boy, who does nothing) does not reflect that, which ties back into my hatred of Christianity as a religion that teaches the masses to be powerless and seek their spiritual salvation in others, when it is readily available to them.
(I quote Bible passages with a perverse enjoyment, though)
> 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-con...
The norm is still heavily enforced.
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.
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?
Voat only became "Reddit for white supremacists" because Reddit was pushing many of those users off their platform. Only Fans only became "Patreon for sex work" because Patreon didn't want those users on their platform. Anyone who wasn't one of those groups was better off just sticking with Reddit and Patreon and that only became truer as the reputation became more and more ingrained with the platform's brand.
This seems like an opportunity, not a problem. Since most platforms simply don't get traction at all, you have something. It's opportunity that involves problems (or "challenges") but you've gotten somewhere on the market chessboard. And most "growth hacks" present challenges.
That said, it's hard to believe that onlyfans wasn't aware they were effective a porn site. Maybe Voat was more naive since white supremacy doesn't monetize the way porn does but I'd be skeptical there too. The Internet has a zillion places for any population to go so there isn't a single "off-brand" that a undesirable population X is fated to go to.
Have a look at the front page of Voat. I’m not even gonna check it myself because I’ve seen enough. I guarantee you that 50% or more of everything on the front page of Voat at any moment will be very obviously white supremacist type content. They know. And by letting those people dominate their platform for so long, they are effectively saying that white supremacists are welcome on their site, and that they are ok with giving a platform to people who are looking to spread hate against others based on ethnicity and nationality.
Voat shut down last year (I actually wasn't aware until reading this thread and trying to check the frontpage)
It doesn't appear to be ran on the same codebase or the same database as the "old" Voat, but it can essentially be considered "back".
This time the site above did actually have some content that match the description. Looking at the top 10 on the front page, 8 is anti-vaccination discussions and 2 is anti-jew. That is significant more than any of the other sites I have looked at, and for once I can verify what the person claim to be true.
(As usual people demonstrate how appreciated independent verification is).
It is both. If money is the primary driver you should simply accept the opportunity and pivot. However I would guess that the people who founded, worked at, and invested in these companies before the brand change were probably a little uneasy about that "growth hack". I know I would leave any company that to pivoted to white supremacy or porn. The former for personal moral reasons and the latter because our societal morality creates a stigma that isn't worth dealing with.
Plus this content is generally kicked off the original platform for some reason other than morals. It is usually because users are abandoning the platform or other companies are refusing to work with them. Embracing this content can therefore result in headaches like payment processors or cloud providers refusing to work with you.
The amount of money in porn overall is vast, generally estimated in the billions.[1] Some pariahs get a lot of money.
I'd agree on white supremacy, still.
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/porn-could-bigger-economic-in...
And it's only fans
Unfortunately when I first set it up, I wasn't concerned about visibility haha. But while it's all fans, most of the content is heavily electric fan related
It reminds me of a "Ken M" post, but like a joke that just keeps working, even if you tell variants of it over and over.
I really miss the "old days" when the internet was full of single purpose, dumb-if-you-think-too-much-about-it, hilarious sites (crappy taxidermy, ThatWillBuffOut.com, graphjam, etc.) and this is as close as we can get these days. Only. Fans.
Yes,there was a time when Patreon meant porn. But now a lot of mainstream artists, YouTubers, etc. using Patreon.
Anything newsworthy will likely get reposted online somewhere within the hour anyway.
Otherwise it's just a PG13 version of itself with similar sexual undertones.
It's corporate suicide and it makes zero sense that they aren't fighting it. It's a valuable market, it's ethically sound and they are making the world a better place by having a safe place for adult performers to sell their services.
It was always weird but also kind of fascinating to dive in to.
Even if they lose the bulk of their customers, they will still have a bigger network than if they had started with the same platform, but without the porn.
The company is probably assuming they can pivot, and maybe they can, but I doubt it