122
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago

I've said this for years as others online have claimed OF is so safe. You don't know the full story. It is not necessarily a more ethical business model than traditional porn

[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 64 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[-] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 28 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[-] Microw@lemm.ee 10 points 4 months ago

Yeah.

Diaz set up an account and had a woman verify it as hers. That woman, whom police didn’t identify, later quit OnlyFans. But her account remained live and accessible to Diaz. He filled it with videos of the underage girl

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.

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 months ago

You do realise how ironic posting that to Lemmy of all places is?

[-] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

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?

[-] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 19 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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%.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 15 points 4 months ago

For comparison with non-porn, youtube takes more than 50% from adsense and 30% of supetchat/super thanks .

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

From my understanding, it’s higher than OF alternatives

[-] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 7 points 4 months ago

Are there good (more ethical? cheaper?) OF alternatives? That's not my world at all...

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Fansly exists, there are others that’s I’ve seen referenced but it’s not something I’m super familiar with.

[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[-] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 points 4 months ago

Do most employers spend 70% of their profit on the staff wages?

[-] Plopp@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

How is 70% of what customers pay the same as 70% of their profits?

[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 months ago

Creators on OF or any social media platform can't be compared to employees. They are more like suppliers.

[-] dezmd@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

You mean gross revenue, not profit. 30% profit is after expenses including CoGS/wages and is good money if it scales.

[-] Zak@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

The main thing I'm getting from the article is that adults who try to profit from abusing children on OnlyFans get arrested.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

The ones who get caught, yeah.

[-] Zak@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

It seems to me that OnlyFans takes several steps that make it easier for police and prosecutors to do their job, some of which are detailed in the article. What additional steps do you think they should take?

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

None. My point is that there’s a shit ton of abuse out there. Only a tiny amount is caught

You said the people who do this get arrested. But they don’t. Only a tiny fraction get caught and arrested

[-] Zak@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I guess I'm thinking about this from a solutions-oriented mindset: what concrete, achievable steps can various entities take to reduce child abuse? For an adult content platform, the identity verification steps OnlyFans uses seem reasonable; even when an offender uses an account owned by someone else, that often provides enough of a lead for investigators.

[-] lowleveldata@programming.dev -4 points 4 months ago

Why are kids allowed on OnlyFans?

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 46 points 4 months ago

They aren’t allowed, nor is it legal. That’s kinda the point of the article

[-] lowleveldata@programming.dev 30 points 4 months ago

Actually reading the article? Me on Lemmy? idk that's a bit far fetched

[-] bighatchester@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

My gf had to submit pictures of her ID like 4 times with all her personal information to be able to post . And I had to go through the same process to be able to be included in the videos . So I don't really understand how moniors can post in there .

[-] Microw@lemm.ee 13 points 4 months ago

The article explains it in one case, an adult woman verified the account and then they posted a minor's videos on it instead.

But the article also said that they only know about 30 cases in 5 years in the US. Which doesn't sound like a huge amount to me personally (still too many obviously)

[-] bighatchester@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Yeah it doesn't seem that widespread to me for the amount of people in there . It's probably impossible to get it to 0 . There is always going to be people putting Alot of work to get around it .

[-] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Fake IDs, fake foreign IDs, mismatched IDs?

[-] gian@lemmy.grys.it 4 points 4 months ago

I would love to know how you would decide if the scan or copy of my ID, with picture, I send you by mail, or upload with a web form as a jpeg, is real or a fake.

[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 4 months ago

It's similar to 10 year olds being allowed on Facebook, only there's money and sexual activity involved.

This reminds me of Russia after the Soviet Union fell, in which nine and ten year olds were offering sexual services for lunch money, because they literally had no other means to eat.

In the States today, those jobs that were once a place for teens to get work experience and spending money are now occupied by people paying rent. Competition for fast food cashiers and grocery baggers is fierce.

And yeah, teens who are very pretty find they control their own means of production when it comes to telecommunications sex, so it's natural they too would want to bypass regulations to get some of that sweet, sweet lucre that defines your power and privilege in this society.

She's got a ticket to ride, and she don't care.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
122 points (87.2% liked)

Technology

59689 readers
1904 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS