Such drama in the title. Thing is, this is just a self service x-rated YouTube/Instagram. Feminists have been yelling that "sex work is real work, queen" and that it is "empowering to women" for a long time. Can't have it both ways.
You could equally write a hit piece about Snapchat or any number of apps. They're all just messaging apps.
I don't think it is a great idea for an 18yr old to open an onlyfans account neither as a content creator nor as a subscriber but at some point it is consenting adults swapping files and simply mirrors the offline world.
Blaming the tech aspect is deflecting responsibility.
This article is about a woman who was raped by two guys who filmed the assault, and they then put the video on onlyfans to sell. The woman says "no" in the video itself according to her lawyer. OnlyFans says they moderate 100% of the videos posted, yet they did not catch this, and they made money on it. You cannot play the common carrier card here.
<very unfortunate and emotional example of terrible thing> therefore... what exactly?
What is your solution?
Onlyfans couldn't exist a decade ago but in the name of normalizing things here we are. I'm confused what in my comment makes you think I'm defending them.
To upload to it the content creator must verify their identity similar to KYC at a bank. If anything you can argue being so stupid as to upload to such an account nonconsensual activities led to a swifter arrest.
You said "blaming the tech aspect is deflecting responsibility", but nobody blamed the tech, they blamed the poor moderation. I was clarifying, not attacking you :)
Why did she have an onlyfans account to be uploaded to in the first place for them to moderate? Something to think about. Not an invitation for an argument.
It depends on what you mean by traditional. If you're talking about a "tube" site, then you're probably right. But no namebrand porn studio would do something like that.
I don't think that's true. There are plenty of horror stories from people who have worked in "namebrand" porn studios, including instances of consent being violated.
Well, "traditional" in the time we're living in - websites, hub and cam sites (going around regulations), and sites where you can sell "your own" "content".
How? OnlyFans is not the problem, porn and prostitution are the problem. If it's illegal to sell porn anywhere, only then these things can be fully prevented. Of course, you can't prevent the black market, but the black market is always small.
I am not an expert on porn, that's true, but porn as bad for both the "creators" and the "fans"! There are plenty and plenty of evidence about it. If we care about people's mental and physical health, this thing should be banned!
No, that's not what I mean, but there has been a media attack on OnlyFans for years. I've read the articles about the shady Russian or Ukrainian owner, but, anyway, the problem as a whole needs to be addressed, not cherry-pick the bad guys!
If it requires adjudication from a judge, a process that takes many months or even years, complaining about a false-positive moderation on some website is really neither here nor there.
Professionally-produced porn has 2257 consent verification documents for every actor. My guess is that OF and the uploaders do not have those documents from this woman.
I think you may have misjudged the bias behind this article.
This was not researched or written by someone previously advocating for the destigmatization of sex work. It was clearly written by someone who's personally very troubled by the industry, who wanted to collect and share some evidence for their concerns and point a finger at an institution large enough to hold focus and possibly even legislative intervention.
You are right that the title is dramatized and the article ignored a lot of context, but it's activist journalism coming from people closer to the Gloria Steinem tradition of feminism (or conservative traditions) -- a very different bunch than the one that have been working towards destigmatization.
This is cannon fire from someone upset with the status quo, not an attempt to have it both ways.
I don't know if it's necessarily the case here, but I've seen a number of outlets do that kind of thing. There will be an article presenting porn or sex work as empowering / liberating and then the very next month there will be an article presenting porn or sex work as inherently exploitative and sexist. Sometimes even by the same author.
The more liberal-leaning media in general kind of treats porn as schrodinger's cat or something. It is apparently dismantling and re-enforcing the patriarchy simultaneously.
> No specific action or policy of Onlyfans is demonstrated as problematic.
It mentions multiple times OnlyFans says to have a human review each video and contrasts that with a description of a rape where the victim is repeatably saying "no" on camera.
It mentions OnlyFans being unresponsive to complaints about videos of rape.
It's also about the larger inadequacies about the laws (or lack thereof) concerning non-consensual porn.
The complaint made about inadequacies in law is fair.
> It mentions multiple times OnlyFans says to have a human review each video and contrasts that with a description of a rape where the victim is repeatably saying "no" on camera.
A lot of genuine role pay porn on the internet does that, for better or worse. E.g CNC
> It mentions multiple times OnlyFans says to have a human review each video and contrasts that with a description of a rape where the victim is repeatably saying "no" on camera.
Manual human reviews and slow turnaround times are inseparable. Only automated systems can give quick, instant decisions.
It makes sense that rape like role play videos take a while to review.
If they went 6 months (or something like that) without responding there's clearly a problem, but the nature of unresponsiveness isn't defined in the article
>Manual human reviews and slow turnaround times are inseparable. Only automated systems can give quick, instant decisions.
Being unresponsive isn't the same thing as being slow. It says unresponsive, it doesn't say slow. What basis does anyone have to jump to your take on things when the article plainly states otherwise.
> What basis does anyone have to jump to your take on things when the article plainly states otherwise
Without evidence we should withhold judgment as the default position.
The article doesn’t plainly state bad behaviour from the company, but it does use a lot of rhetorical devices to describe Onlyfans as bad without direct accusations.
It’s almost impressive in an unethical kind of way.
If what is occurring is actually illegal (as your example would be), then it's out of the platforms hands. The platform then wouldn't be able to take any action unless instructed by police.
Are you saying only fans couldn't take down a video of a rape without being instructed by police? On what basis do you believe that to be true? Do you really think that OnlyFan's TOS and agreements with the producers on the platform do not allow OF to remove content it deems inappropriate? That'd be facially absurd.
The number seems to be in the neighborhood of "120" or so, which explains why'd they avoid mentioning it. Given the number of people involved in OF, that's a rounding error.
> Also, the word "some" is used 29 times in the article. Why not just say the exact number?
Because this is "quality journalism". Never give an exact number (the other paper will increase it anyway and make you look bad), use conditional (could, might).
Something interesting about the owner of OnlyFans, Leonid Radvinsky:
> OnlyFans is not his first foray into the world of adult content. After emigrating with his family from Ukraine to Chicago, he set up a company called Cybertania at the age of 17. It ran a number of websites in the early 2000s that marketed "hacked" and "illegal" passwords to porn sites, Forbes reported last year.
> Password Universe, one of the websites, included a link to a site that advertised more than 10,000 "illegal pre-teen passwords" in 2000. Another, Ultra Passwords, claimed to link to "the hottest bestiality site on the web," according to Forbes.
Lonely people will seek attention and affection, we shouldn't blame them for being human. IMHO if we want to talk about this issue let's start by examining the causes and conditions for loneliness becoming so prevalent that it became a market for OF and the like to serve. Most people with an OF subscription would likely rather keep their money, and instead have a loving partner at home. As such they are (IMHO) victims of societal and cultural conditions beyond their control, and deserve compassion.
I'm a male on the conservative side and think this should all be banned-- most female Americans would disagree and call me puritanical for this. It's seen as part of the culture, a necessary sacrifice for freedom. Blaming only men doesn't help when there are women normalizing this stuff too.
63 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] threadYou could equally write a hit piece about Snapchat or any number of apps. They're all just messaging apps.
I don't think it is a great idea for an 18yr old to open an onlyfans account neither as a content creator nor as a subscriber but at some point it is consenting adults swapping files and simply mirrors the offline world.
Blaming the tech aspect is deflecting responsibility.
What is your solution?
Onlyfans couldn't exist a decade ago but in the name of normalizing things here we are. I'm confused what in my comment makes you think I'm defending them.
To upload to it the content creator must verify their identity similar to KYC at a bank. If anything you can argue being so stupid as to upload to such an account nonconsensual activities led to a swifter arrest.
Of course there are. Some are pushed by marketing.
Sex sells.
> the black market is always small
These quotes demonstrate your near complete lack of knowledge on this topic. Very demonstrably wrong on all levels.
>The same thing can happen without OnlyFans
By that logic we could get rid of the whole legal system.
Is that evidence of something? It's common as dirt in professionally-produced porn. What's to catch?
Not noticing something that isn't yet true is not blameworthy by any standard.
Try opening an OF account and see how far you get. Since we are speculating I am guessing something doesn't add up in the article as reported. ;)
> deflecting responsibility
I think you may have misjudged the bias behind this article.
This was not researched or written by someone previously advocating for the destigmatization of sex work. It was clearly written by someone who's personally very troubled by the industry, who wanted to collect and share some evidence for their concerns and point a finger at an institution large enough to hold focus and possibly even legislative intervention.
You are right that the title is dramatized and the article ignored a lot of context, but it's activist journalism coming from people closer to the Gloria Steinem tradition of feminism (or conservative traditions) -- a very different bunch than the one that have been working towards destigmatization.
This is cannon fire from someone upset with the status quo, not an attempt to have it both ways.
The more liberal-leaning media in general kind of treats porn as schrodinger's cat or something. It is apparently dismantling and re-enforcing the patriarchy simultaneously.
I didn't realize Reuters was a "feminist" organization!
You seem to be assuming that all women have the same opinions.
No specific action or policy of Onlyfans is demonstrated as problematic.
Also, the word "some" is used 29 times in the article. Why not just say the exact number?
It mentions multiple times OnlyFans says to have a human review each video and contrasts that with a description of a rape where the victim is repeatably saying "no" on camera.
It mentions OnlyFans being unresponsive to complaints about videos of rape.
It's also about the larger inadequacies about the laws (or lack thereof) concerning non-consensual porn.
> It mentions multiple times OnlyFans says to have a human review each video and contrasts that with a description of a rape where the victim is repeatably saying "no" on camera.
A lot of genuine role pay porn on the internet does that, for better or worse. E.g CNC
> It mentions multiple times OnlyFans says to have a human review each video and contrasts that with a description of a rape where the victim is repeatably saying "no" on camera.
Manual human reviews and slow turnaround times are inseparable. Only automated systems can give quick, instant decisions.
It makes sense that rape like role play videos take a while to review.
If they went 6 months (or something like that) without responding there's clearly a problem, but the nature of unresponsiveness isn't defined in the article
Being unresponsive isn't the same thing as being slow. It says unresponsive, it doesn't say slow. What basis does anyone have to jump to your take on things when the article plainly states otherwise.
Just double checked and it seems “responsive” can refer to either speed or presence of response.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/responsive
> What basis does anyone have to jump to your take on things when the article plainly states otherwise
Without evidence we should withhold judgment as the default position.
The article doesn’t plainly state bad behaviour from the company, but it does use a lot of rhetorical devices to describe Onlyfans as bad without direct accusations.
It’s almost impressive in an unethical kind of way.
Requiring an extra level of verification for CNC porn wouldn't be a bad thing, however.
Because this is "quality journalism". Never give an exact number (the other paper will increase it anyway and make you look bad), use conditional (could, might).
> OnlyFans is not his first foray into the world of adult content. After emigrating with his family from Ukraine to Chicago, he set up a company called Cybertania at the age of 17. It ran a number of websites in the early 2000s that marketed "hacked" and "illegal" passwords to porn sites, Forbes reported last year.
> Password Universe, one of the websites, included a link to a site that advertised more than 10,000 "illegal pre-teen passwords" in 2000. Another, Ultra Passwords, claimed to link to "the hottest bestiality site on the web," according to Forbes.
— https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/leonid-radvinsky-bo...