122
Child predators are exploiting kids on OnlyFans despite vows of safety
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
122 points (87.2% liked)
Technology
59689 readers
1956 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's definitely more ethical in that it allows the creators to get more of the money.
But that doesn't mean there aren't issues. Clearly it doesn't fix the whole issue of people under 18 sometimes making their way into the industry. It's not a silver bullet that fixes an entire (sometimes problematic) industry.
I don't know who was trying to tell you that OF solves everything about the porn industry, there would be no further issues, and that we'd live happily ever after, but that was obviously never going to be the case.
Also the article isn't even so much about underaged users trying to get on the platform to post pictures of themselves or trying to gain access to porn, OF seems to be fairly good at keeping them out, it's adults posting content involving minors and that's a lot harder problem to prevent without literally going through every upload manually.
Yeah.
That's really not easy to catch, no matter what platform you are. Some people will do complicated shit to evade the eyes of the law for their illicit activities.
It's almost like creating a platform where the intent is for users to post content without any kind of curation or manual review is itself a flawed idea. I understand how tempting the whole thing is, to set up a platform that allows you to be a passive middleman and take a cut of all activity on the platform.
Should be a law that if a platform is making money from something, it is also responsible for that content. Curation shouldn't be enforced by law, but the legality of the content should be, whether it be illegal on its own like in this case or fraud. Ads included.
You do realise how ironic posting that to Lemmy of all places is?
I'm talking about the commercial platforms where the idea is to scale up to the point where some small fee results in large revenues and companies often scale beyond their capacity to review the content of their platform. Others end up hurt in the process while the company makes money from it.
OF take 30% I think. What does an average scene make on OF? How does that compare to the pay rate for old school porn?
I think 30% is a fairly common number. That's also the exact share Google, Apple take if you're a programmer and sell Apps on their platform. And probably also what you're facing when selling online courses or other things. I'd be surprised if a platform that also offers some infrastructure, takes less than say 20 or 30%.
For comparison with non-porn, youtube takes more than 50% from adsense and 30% of supetchat/super thanks .
From my understanding, it’s higher than OF alternatives
Are there good (more ethical? cheaper?) OF alternatives? That's not my world at all...
Fansly exists, there are others that’s I’ve seen referenced but it’s not something I’m super familiar with.
I think receiving 70% of the prices that you yourself set and deem acceptable is likely better than ?% of whatever PornHub or XHamster say they made from your video predominantly through ad revenue.
At the very least, it gives creators a great amount more control. In terms of setting prices, in terms of creating content they want to make as opposed to what a production company says, in terms of how you want to advertise, in terms of whether you want to lock your content behind a paid tier or not, etc.
And 30% is also pretty standard. Google, Apple, Valve, etc all charge 30%. Shit, on twitch it's 50% IIRC. I'm not saying it's perfect and couldn't be cheaper, but it's the usual market rate.
Do most employers spend 70% of their profit on the staff wages?
How is 70% of what customers pay the same as 70% of their profits?
Those purchases aren't paid for by Only Fans. It's the content creators who pay for all that (unless there's a way to get sponsored by OF, I don't know). However, reliably storing and streaming video in high quality across the globe with low latency, both live and on demand, which is what OF does, is expensive af. It's one of the reasons, if not the main one, there are no real competitors to YouTube.
I'm sorry, but you're confused, and you're making me very confused. Or I'm confused and you're confused also. All I know is I'm confused. And you.
Viewer (customer) pays $100 for some content. Of those 100, OF (infrastructure & service provider) takes $30 as an income and the remaining $70 goes to the content creator as income.
Profit is what's left from the income after you have paid your costs. The 30% OF takes is an income from which they will have to pay for things needed to run OF, and the 70% the content creators get is their income from which they have to pay for the things they need to create the content. Wages are included in the costs. What's left after paying bills, wages etc are the profits.
Creators on OF or any social media platform can't be compared to employees. They are more like suppliers.
You mean gross revenue, not profit. 30% profit is after expenses including CoGS/wages and is good money if it scales.