Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
OnlyFans to block sexually explicit videos starting in October (bloomberg.com)
1147 points by minimaxir on Aug 19, 2021 | hide | past | favorite | 1314 comments

This thread has 1300+ comments; to see the rest, click More at the bottom of the page, or like this:




(Comments like this will go away when we turn off pagination. Sorry for the annoyance.)

This is going to be corporate suicide on a greater scale than Tumblr's policy.

I say greater because OnlyFans is/was still on a massive upswing whereas Tumblr was 10 years past its peak already when the nails went in the coffin.

Edit: I understand this is supposedly not their choice.

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).

It’s a recent push toward more mainstream performers. For example, there are pro surfers who are popular youtube vloggers (e.g. Nathan Florence) who recently started onlyfans channels. Nathan’s is a fitness training channel. It threw a lot of people off guard. And I strongly suspect that onlyfans paid him to start this channel.

https://onlyfans.com/nathanflorence https://dailycaller.com/2021/06/17/onlyfans-pivot-porn-backi...

This is pretty stupid though, to throw away the business you have for the business you might have, there is heaps of porn on Twitter, looking at it is optional. Why can't it just co-exist with other "acceptable" content ?

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.

>Side note, I don’t know why porn is so shameful

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)

> I'm suggesting a ban on religion in the political space.

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.

I'd like to start by saying I respect your arguments.

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.

> if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain

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.
(So as not to just quote scripture out of context, I will note that there is much more subtext here: Galatians 3 is in large part about whether Christianity is going to be catholic (open to all), or more narrowly Jewish. I feel it builds to the climax of Galatians 3:28, which answers that: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one 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.)

> 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.

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)

You're ignoring ideologies that are specifically about rejection of coercion, though. Structure doesn't always have to be imposed.

Are you perhaps projecting a US experience?

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.

gay porn was not banned in the UK, but rather things associated with violence, aggression or non-consent; as such I fail to see the link to religion.

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.

UK bans a lot of perfectly consensual BDSM porn, for example.

> violence, aggression or non-consent

That was overturned.

The head of state is not the head of government, but you may be interested in this recent judgement to overturn a ban of some sexual acts in porn https://uk.news.yahoo.com/violent-porn-including-bdsm-no-lon...

UK is as close to police / surveillance state as it can get: a lot of things are benned, privacy is severely limited, internet is censored, strong crypto isn't exactly legal (even though no one been thrown in jail, yet), banking banned crypto and have severe KYC requirements, etc.

So in many areas UK has less freedoms than poor authoritarian countries. I cant say anything about Germany since I havent lived there.

It's fascinating to me that you've used "crypto" as synecdoche for both cryptography and cryptocurrency in successive parts of the same sentence!

Pardon me. I didnt put much mind into the fact this could be confusing.

It’s ok. You were just being a little crypto.

TIL what synechdoche means ...

Have a reference for strong crypto being illegal? I know the government store a month of all our personal correspondence (due to the snoopers charter) but Afaict crypto is still legal.

It is legal, but with caveat that you have to provide decryption keys on court order and refusing to do so is illegal. It wasn't heavily used against anyone as far as I aware, but it's can always change.

> banking banned crypto

cryptocurrency? Revenue taxes crypto gains so I doubt that.

Banks don't care if you paid taxes. Most of major banks will close your account if they suspect crypto-related transactions. And almost all fintech companies will ban your account if you even just buy crypto with a card payment: Wise, Monzo, Starling, etc.

crypto-related transactions is a different thing from banning banks from dealing in crypto. If banks don't want to deal with the Due-dil that's fair & fine to me. You don't need a bank to use an exchange.

> almost all fintech companies will ban your account

I believe revolut operates in the UK and allows you to trade in btc.

> You don't need a bank to use an exchange.

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.

In the UK you literally have to ask your ISP before you are allowed to see porn (or use a different name server).

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.

> for example church taxes (even if you can opt out) are still collected via the government.

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.

> In other news US post office caught delivering mail to churches, synagogues and mosques.

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?

> and the government collecting money for churches only

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.

I would suggest that giving religious institutions tax-free status in the US is a form of subsidy. That’s why it’s such a problem when they begin to preach in a partisan manner.

There are a lot of churches in the US, though. If we only paid taxes that went to churches - who knows - it might reach Afghanistan levels. Plus, there would be even more “private contractors from god” getting into the game.

The equivalent would be for each existing organisation (or individual) to have a box listed to check in the tax form (that is the privilege). That would be a long form, though.

Only the big 5 ISPs, I've got a small local one and it's pretty much completely unrestricted

> In the UK you literally have to ask your ISP before you are allowed to see porn (or use a different name server).

Or use a better ISP.

The UK doesn't really have a "state church" - arguably England does, but that's only part of the UK (albeit by far the largest part).

I've just learned about the UK internet blocks.

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.

Apart from the fact that I can't go to a supermarket at 5pm on a Sunday, of course.

Yes, though from what I can tell that's mostly been defended by the unions now?

People's political views are generally interwoven with their notion of morality and in the case of the religious, that morality is informed by their religion. The idea that you can separate religion and politics is misguided at best.

Also, even if you remove religion something else will surely take its place. It seems that notions of aggressive conventionality and "crush the unclean" are somewhat baked into a percentage of society, and I definitely think the really hostile climate of the pandemic has added evidence to this theory. There's always going to be a nasty, moralistic, curtain-twitcher segment of society no matter what name or organisation they give it. Sometimes they hide behind religion, sometimes they hide behind politics, sometimes it's another label entirely but what they all have in common is an excessive bias when it comes to the emotion of disgust.

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.

The Unholy Trinity: State, Church and the Market. Despite the common belief to the contrary, they can never be truly separated. They're only distinct in the sense a continuous multimodal distribution has "distinct" modes - the boundaries are fuzzy. Ultimately, they all serve the goal of social coordination, and they all work with means of coercing people to do things for other people.

It's not the political leadership, it's the financial levers. Visa and Mastercard, specifically.

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.

> Is it really such a mystery?

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.

> Men who do not care about the sexual freedom of their partners tend to got the way of Dodo.

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)

As long as there is an expectation of content providers doing porn, most content creators will shy away of being part of the platform. Their own response to the news published by Bloomberg includes this line:

> 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.


Late to the game here, but...

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.

Economically, some people get ashamed, embarrassed or outright offended that paying for sexually explicit material somehow makes that person property that owe them anything they like in return, so chargebacks in this sector are extremely high.

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...

> Economically, some people get ashamed, embarrassed or outright offended that paying for sexually explicit material somehow makes that person property that owe them anything they like in return

That's quite the assumption.

> so chargebacks in this sector are extremely high.


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.

A friend of a friend is a very very popular performer on onlyfans, and my friend noted that she is flush in amazon gift cards (at least when he told me this like 2 years ago). That seems to be the primary mode of payment because it looks innocuous in bank/credit card records.

Aren't there also issues of borderline fraudulent behavior from some of the creators? IOW Content producer claims they update on X or Y cadence, in reality they update a fraction of that time (or never) or the quality of content they produce is a fraction of what they use to get people to initially sign up for the service.

As to your side note as a gay guy I notice that even though people like to think we're really progressive these days, society really, really isn't.

The norm is still heavily enforced.

Plus it's behind a login.

Also, the overwhelming majority of adults consume pornography. To pretend otherwise at this point is a ludicrous farce.


AFAIK the reason why OnlyFans is getting rid of porn is because they didnt moderate properly, so there were cases of CSAM and more and they were on the brink of having their payment providers cancel on them like what happened to pornhub a few months ago

And thats why payment processors should be a public utility

Payment processing being a public utility would result in less access to payment processing for services with a combination of high chargeback/fraud rates and opposition from some sections of the public

We already have blockchain, which is already at-your-own-risk.

you could still have your public provider and a private provider with added services

That's still stupid - surely the solution is to moderate better, not to literally kill the company.

The payment processors don't care about the health of the company, they care about their own survival. If a report is publicly released that there's a significant amount of CSAM material being sold on OnlyFans and they are knowingly facilitating it, the potential costs to them both in legal troubles and PR is substantially greater than the revenue they get from OnlyFans. Worst case scenario is OnlyFans goes bust and some new company comes along with a similar business model but better moderation.

>Why can't it just co-exist with other "acceptable" content?

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?

It’s 100% ok for women to pay men to do what they want as well, what people make political is really just basic economics.

If you can flip it and it sounds right then you can’t have it both ways, that’s hypocritical.

Is it not okay for women to sell their labor, services, performances, to anybody they choose to?

There are plenty of men with OnlyFans channels.

And there are plenty of women willing to pay other women to do things as well.

If PCCCI conformity and compliance can be done programmatically and the interfaces and tAPIs standardised, a uniform hardened virtual machine created commercially with multiple levels of support for complimentary up and down stream support / integration / development / consulting / services brokerage, isn't it possible to finance a very significant development in Linux security and privacy when some kind of economic opportunity like this comes along with just the right characteristics to attract sufficient attention and commitment?

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?

Not at all. If someone told anyone I know they have a onlyfans, I can’t think of anyone who would assume anything other than porn

It is the same problem that Voat had. If you are are a platform that prioritizes minimal moderation in a market dominated by someone who doesn't, the primary reason to use your platform is because that content isn't allowed on the market leader.

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.

It is the same problem that Voat had. If you are are a platform that prioritizes minimal moderation in a market dominated by someone who doesn't, the primary reason to use your platform is because that content isn't allowed on the market leader.

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.

> Maybe Voat was more naive since white supremacy doesn't monetize the way porn does but I'd be skeptical there too.

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.

> Have a look at the front page of Voat. I’m not even gonna check it myself because I’ve seen enough.

Voat shut down last year (I actually wasn't aware until reading this thread and trying to check the frontpage)

A site which calls itself Voat and uses Voat branding is back under the domain voat.xyz and it has a higher percentage of extremist content than the old Voat (if you can believe that).

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".

I have tried to verify every single time in the past when people on HN have pointed at a reddit alternative or subreddit with claims of extremist content, and every single time I have found nothing. When I point this out I have gotten replies (and downvotes) that the content is actually there but hidden in dead comments, which then archive.org do not display. It always leaves me without any way to verify the claim.

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).

Agreed. It's an attempt to censor indy media, when there's just as much extremist content on the mainstream sites.

But that site doesn't accept new users. So in that way it's not different from the old Voat.

Ah, so it has. Great!

Voat.co was started by reddit altright. It was less racist when it was on reddit. Mostly memes and the racist stuff was, for the most part, modded down and few and far between.

>This seems like an opportunity, not a problem.

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.

IDK... if money is all that concerns you, I'd say stay away from porn, or white supremacy. Not much money in being a pariah, usually. As you say, employees may leave. Investors may leave. Banks may try to drop you.

...if money is all that concerns you, I'd say stay away from porn, or white supremacy. Not much money in being a pariah, usually.

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...

Just because the market is big doesn't mean it's easy to get a slice. The food industry is absolutely huge and also very brutal. Margins are razor thin and people get crushed constantly.

Onlyfans had a big slice.

But that’s a different argument. The point was that being in the porn industry was being a pariah. This simply is not the case and the porn industry is huge.

New users can't register at Voat currently, so it seems kind of dead anyway.

Well I have a page on facebook called Only. Fans.

And it's only fans

Unfortunately, your page is very difficult to find on FB via search. So, is it electric fans, handheld fans, or both?


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

Liked. Cannot wait for fan photos, videos and other fan related content on my wall. It will be MUCH better than what usually lands there.

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.

This is gold! Well done :)

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.

Well King Aaron, have you considered owning a castle, starting a sex cult, declaring a new country on a private island or all three?

Is King Aaron really that Jeffery Epstein? Is he alive?

The trifecta, obviously!

Patreon was able to change that though.

Yes,there was a time when Patreon meant porn. But now a lot of mainstream artists, YouTubers, etc. using Patreon.

When was that? I've been supporting people on Patreon since 2014 and it's basically been the same mix of independent comic artists and Youtubers the entire time. I know there was a ruckus when they kicked porn off the site, but I never knew they were on there in the first place.

Is it not a porn site? I thought it was a porn site.

When I first heard about it, people were comparing it to Patreon. Then it became porn because of some weird loophole in how credit card companies work. Credit cards and pornography is its whole massive side discussion.

I really thought it was meant to be Patreon for Porn. I've never heard about it an any context other than porn. Until now, if you'd asked me, I'd have confidently stated it was conceived as a porn site. This is truly news to me that it wasn't meant to be a porn site.

I feel like this is what Twitch is also fighting against. Twitch started slowly becoming erotic streaming platform.

But Twitch is already established as a billion-dollar company (acquired, no less) providing SFW streaming services. I could understand staying out of the porn market in their case. But OnlyFans is _only_ associated with erotic content.

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.

They’ve been pushing hard for celebrities for a while. But TBH I’m not sure what more you get here in some picture-based fan club than you’ll find on Instagram.

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.

My understanding of it was purely regarding porn. Or, as an open platform focusing on paid user generated content which naturally was a cesspool for porn. Interesting enough, after a debate about would you date a girl who had an OF account, I went decided to visit browse site last week and couldn't find anything other than highly sexually provocative but legit sounding channels. Mostly of the fitness type because yoga pants and other form fitting attire. But, I actually found no porn. I suppose you have to know what to search for, or who you want to follow. I never saw any content because I didn't pay for any.

My understanding is that you get the porn after subscribing to a certain creator, but I haven't really even been to the site, so my view might be completely off.

They're probably not promoting the pornographic content because they don't want that to be their brand. The way to end up on the porn is to be following someone on another platform who is either already posting dirty content on that platform and now wants to monetize it or by following someone who is popular for some other reason but then realizes they can get a lot more money out of their fanbase by selling nudes.

I’m surprised too. It’s like using pornhub to post SFW tech tip videos.

There actually was quite a bit of SFW content on their before the big purge. Quite a few people choosing to use it as a weird alternative to YouTube for their non-porn gaming stuff and also using it reupload/mirror content from YouTube.

It was always weird but also kind of fascinating to dive in to.

Pornhub was actually decent for sports back in the day because they didn't do content ID

Bait and switch.

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.

That hasn't really worked in practice. I think of Tumblr which basically stopped all growth and innovation the moment they banned porn.

The company is probably assuming they can pivot, and maybe they can, but I doubt it

Sure, but its a much smaller network than they had when they applied for financing at their desired valuation. Why would I give them a valuation of a billion dollars if they suddenly lose some large (by some estimates 60+ %) portion of their income. I think this begins their slow demise.

Is it really their own fault for not doing marketing? They were open to have porn on the platform, and then it just swarmed to them. People did the marketing for them.

There’s non-porn content on PornHub too, but much like OnlyFans that’s a neat trivia fact and statistically meaningless to their bottom line.

Actually I'd have to say a good marketing department. I think it was part of a long-term plan to be relevant to broad audiences, and come out through the woodwork already strong.

Sounds like a great opportunity for another player to step in and fill the vacuum, given that OnlyFans already proved there's a market for this. Just like Vine vs TikTok.

Also, weird that they would give up an entire market because of prude payment providers. Are these providers from Afghanistan? They should not have that much power over their customers.

Maybe a crypto spin off could work.

Anyone who does will face the same pressure from payout vendors.

No one corporate wants to be actively involved in paying sex workers.

Is this still true? Porn sites seem to have no problems selling ad space, although it may not be to major brands. I suspect that eventually even that will change. How many people are really so put off by human sexuality that they'll refuse to buy a product that advertises on a porn site? How many of those people are going to porn sites to see those ads in the first place?

I think that slowly corporations are going to dismiss the loud puritanical few that complain about it and that those who do will find advertising their brands along side porn is extremely profitable. Corporations have been using sex to sell their products for ages specifically because it's so effective. It's just a matter of time until they start being honest about it.

The original article in Variety[0] there’s a quote that specifically states “complying with our banks’ and payout vendors’ policies.” as the reason for the change. This seems to allude that the direct payments to the sex workers themselves are what were at-odds with those policies.

0. https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/onlyfans-ban-pornograp...

Seems like the heads of banks and payment processors themselves may be the ones with puritanical views. Time for companies to push for and support alternatives (including cryptocurrency) to free themselves from those in the financial industry who are holding them back from profit and progress. If they are so entrenched and powerful that it's impossible for a new company to meet the current needs of the market than the government has to step in. Maybe it's time to break some of these old financial companies up or strip away some of the regulations they've had put into place to keep their monopoly position

I've heard that it's generally the Federal government and anti-porn groups that pressure the payment processors. Remember how PornHub was accused of hosting all kinds of stuff, and then Visa and Mastercard stopped processing payments until changes were made? That was because anti-porn groups had applied pressure.


I haven't seen much evidence for federal pressure on payment processors directly. The article seems to be mostly about pornhub's over-reaction in response to the over-reaction of payment processors who pandered to the anti-porn groups.

The government really did screw over websites like Craigslist and Backpage, but that was due to changes which would have made the site operators responsible for the content their users post which I don't think would have an impact on someone like mastercard.

I suspect the payment processors must support the anti-porn agenda since I doubt they really fear that any appreciable number of people will resort to using cash only for the rest of their lives in protest. It's entirely within Visa's power to say "If you don't like porn don't pay for it, but it isn't our place to police what free people can do with their money. Our role is simply to facilitate any legal transaction. If you feel something shouldn't be legal speak to your representatives and change the laws"

FOSTA/SESTA has been cited as an incident of the Federal government working against sex workers being normalized, at least in the realm of payments and digital outlets.

Maybe it's high (past) time we collectively told The Banks to face the corner and go f*** themselves?

It is, but they have all our money and all the leverage.

I think the difference is with porn sites the actors have signed contracts and gone through several legal requirements to ensure a "safe" enviorment. They also generally don't do the more extreme porn fetishes that are illegal in some countries (Think rape/incest roleplay. But the list is massive.)

Onlyfans and sites similar often attract the small fetish sex workers because the demand isn't big enough for a major company to pick up on them on a regular basis but the demand is enough they can make serious money freelancing.

Just use cryptocurrencies.

Sounds like a market opportunity for new, non-prudish payment provider.

The problem has never been payment providers' morality. Porn payments come with significantly higher chargeback rates than traditional payments. If someone can find a way to stop red-handed husbands from claiming credit card theft when the wife checks the bill, there's a market opportunity.

The vendor already eats that risk though, right? Chargeback fees cover the credit card company against that risk.

The problem from the credit card companies' point of view is that "I got caught by my wife" isn't a valid chargeback reason, so the vendor can dispute the chargeback, have every incentive to do so, and that's not a fight Visa want to get into.

Of course the reason given isn't "I got caught by my wife", it's "I don't know how that charge got there, it must be ... fraud".

Payment processors are required to maintain a certain chargeback rate with the card companies and so that risk gets passed on to the merchants.

This is all exceedingly well documented and a Google search away if you'd like to learn the inner workings of it.

100% correct, it's sad that we still use hopelessly insecure credit cards, a better system would have non-repudiation built in, charge backs from the customer claiming "I didnt authorise that" would go away

Unfortunately, this would incentivize bad behavior on the part of disreputable merchants. Dark ui patterns would abound in some parts of the internet.

That's already in the works / up and running...

You're looking for cumrocket . io (no, not joking) and their own Token Cumrocket / $Cummies which is on BSC (Binance Smart Chain).

Probably showing my prudish tendencies here, but that is too disgusting to work branding wise.

You don’t have to like it to love it, where money is involved.

“The live CUMROCKET price today is $0.053191 USD with a 24-hour trading volume of $4,789,810 USD. CUMROCKET is up 61.03% in the last 24 hours.”

I read that sex-workers have lost their livelihood during the pandemic due to lockdowns and have become more vulnerable. Then I read the interview of Aella, A OnlyFans creator making 5-figures on IndieHackers[1].

I always felt porn was an exploitative business so was never into it, But I gained respect for OnlyFans as a platform because it enabled people to move from dangerous, risky work to relatively safe work. As with any content platform, I understand that only perhaps top 5% might make sustainable business out of it but still it's a choice available.

Now they've blown it, In order to chase after scale OnlyFans has decided to sacrifice their original customers. Fans of those music artists who are supposedly joining now should inform them that OnlyFans is robbing the livelihood and would be pushing many back to dangerous physical-sex work.

[1] https://www.indiehackers.com/podcast/211-aella-savannah-solo

Is everyone else who isn't running a porn subscription company also robbing potential porn creators of a livelihood or is this a helping people a little is worse than doing nothing type situation?

Few artists want to be associated with that by now. If people present their onlyfans, customers expect nude pictures.

Article states that OnlyFans took this decision because big names from music and other industries are joining them.

This article? Didn't read anything like that although I just skimmed it. Be that as it may, people often associate onlyfans with sex work.

Aella already had a monetized following prior to onlyfans. She is not representative of the potential of a new content creator.

> I gained respect for OnlyFans as a platform because it enabled people to move from dangerous, risky work to relatively safe work

What about not getting into this and, thus, not being exposed to any risks? Sex-work nowadays is the matter of choice, it's not how it used to be in pre-internet era.

> What about not getting into this and, thus, not being exposed to any risks? Sex-work nowadays is the matter of choice, it's not how it used to be in pre-internet era.

Unfortunately it's often the only choice, If not we wouldn't be still finding women from poor countries dead in locked shipping containers in the harbors of developed countries.

I meet many women who could easily move into sex-work, but they don't, they have tiring job which pays pennies, but they know that in the end this hard working is much better choice. Let's stop playing on victim note, almost everybody has a choice and in case of OF it is always a choice.

That has nothing to do with Only Fans, though. I wish we could have a grown-up discussion without someone shutting it down with “but trafficking” (quite often from a right-wing nutter who does not give a fig about the people in question, though I am not saying that you are). Trafficking and exploitation are bad, but it’s not unique to porn, and you can have porn without it.

I agree, trafficking is marginal problem nowadays, except maybe children trafficking, but this is totally different story. Prostitution today is a choice and, in developed countries, does not even have that much social stigma.

This is going to be corporate suicide on a greater scale than Tumblr's policy.

Just a note that Tumblr's anti-porn policy has been fairly leaky and users basically adapted to it. After a decline, the site now hosts nearly as much porn as previously.

The problem is that onlyfans has a much bigger spotlight on it. So yeah, one wonders how people justify just killing their product.

Even still they went from selling for a billion to being sold for three million. Maybe not entirely fair to blame it purely on the anti-porn push, as the general trends of social media platforms isn’t particularly kind to most companies, but it sure didn’t help.

But agreed that I didn’t know OnlyFans had any meaningful non-porn content. And the business sense in this seems 100% geared towards a short term payout with no regard for what happens afterward.

How did they adapt to it? Asking as someone who didn't know Tumblr was still around.

I did not even know they had slipped!

This is the least of their problems and I am amazed none of their executives is not yet in jail:

"The children selling explicit videos on OnlyFans"


No verification will be bulletproof, and persistent people will occasionally get around it. I'm not sure what responsibility OnlyFans has beyond taking reasonable measures to prevent circumventing verification. The article mentions someone using their older sister's license as verification. Presumably they look similar. And that's somehow OnlyFan's fault? There's no reason why the executives would have any sort of personal liability.

The anti-vice authoritarians will always come after any lucrative porn enterprise with these sensationalized stories. I'm surprised there are still people out there that eat it up.

In the case of child pornography the law - in many countries - explicitly makes it the platforms responsibility.

Read your comment again and realize what you are saying. This thread has more than 800 comments on the different online billing strategies and payment providers...Here you have an extensive well researched article of the BBC, with two different law enforcement officers confirming this is happening and you are arguing its not their responsibility? Who is the enabler here?

> Here you have an extensive well researched article of the BBC, with two different law enforcement officers confirming this is happening

Why would the BBC or the police be worthy of trust? It’s ironic to trust their word when the article goes over the ways the site tries to verify identity and hence age, and they seem reasonable, far more reasonable than trusting the police because they’re the police.

I’m not going to post up my passport but I didn’t come down in the last shower.

If you have a point to make, just make it. I have no interest in trying to anticipate your argument.

My point is that they are subject to this:


Try to use the excuse under a judge that the children are the ones fooling your obvious flawed registration system to see how that will go.

The question of liability for the site given reasonable verification measures is still an open question. For example, Tracy Lords was a popular porn star of the 80s until she outed herself as having been underage in her films. The FBI investigated the porn industry and no one was found liable as she used a fake ID and the producers had it on file. The idea that there is endless liability for producers when someone circumvents their verification just isn't true.

> The FBI investigated the porn industry and no one was found liable as she used a fake ID and the producers had it on file.

WHOA! That's not true.

At least one of her fellow "actors" went to jail for it and I think some of the staff only avoided jail by cutting plea bargains but still wound up with felonies.

There is a reason why so many people were angry when Traci Lords started getting "legitimate" roles after having destroyed a lot of people's lives.

Child porn is a strict liability crime in most cases of the US. Yeah, the justice system generally applies some common sense (ie. not convicting two 16 year olds sending each other selfies), but that is completely at the whim of the system and doesn't always hold true.

This doesn't seem accurate according to a cursory search. While I was incorrect that no one was prosecuted for it, it seems that charged were eventually dropped after the court ruled that strict liability in this case would violate the first amendment[1]

>Our reading of the relevant Supreme Court opinions, particularly Smith v. California, suggests that the first amendment does not permit the imposition of criminal sanctions on the basis of strict liability where doing so would seriously chill protected speech. While Congress may take steps to punish severely those who knowingly subject minors to sexual exploitation, and even those who commit such abuse recklessly or negligently, it may not impose very serious criminal sanctions on those who have diligently investigated the matter and formed a reasonable good-faith belief that they are engaged in activities protected by the first amendment.


1996: Producer conviction upheld https://www.upi.com/Archives/1996/01/05/Conviction-upheld-in...

> Gottesman was found guilty of violating the 1977 Child Sexual Exploitation Act, but appealed the lower court verdict all the way to U. S. Supreme Court, claiming that he should not be held liable for using underage girls if they lied about their age.

Yet this is also commented from 2011:


> No one, including Lords or her scene partners, ever went to jail over the scandal, but it led to several court cases and tougher laws regulating the adult industry.

"Never went to jail" does not exclude "Cut a deal but still wound up with a felony conviction". However, apparently my memory was faulty about someone going to jail.

Unfortunately, everything about the case is old enough that it doesn't appear well in search engines. And that's without the fact that everything is going to be drowned out in search engines by being proximate to "traci lords".

"The guidelines for enforcing these laws require producers of sexually explicit material to obtain proof of age for every model they shoot, and retain those records. Federal inspectors may at any time launch inspections of these records and prosecute any infraction."

From the article...I am also amazed at the downvotes.


Schools have shared anonymous reports of pupils using the site, including a 16-year-old who boasted to her careers adviser about the amount of money she made on the site, and showed off her "exuberant" spending on Instagram.

Underage creators and users of the site include victims of prior sexual abuse and those with mental health issues and suicidal thoughts, according to Childline counsellor notes. UK police forces say children have complained about their images being uploaded to the site without consent, and one 17-year-old reported being blackmailed.

Missing children are appearing in OnlyFans videos, according to a US watchdog, which also says it has received reports of child sexual exploitation.

"It is increasingly clear that OnlyFans is being used by children," says chief constable Simon Bailey, the UK's child protection lead.

"The company is not doing enough to put in place the safeguards that prevent children exploiting the opportunity to generate money, but also for children to be exploited."

In a statement, OnlyFans says it could not respond specifically to the anonymous reports we were told about without the account details.


Honestly I don't see what the problem is with a 17 year old getting some money for posting pics... That's a lot of money they can earn.

Claims about this "damaging" them seem about as speculative as 1960s claims that homosexual behaviour is damaging.

OK, let's say that 17 is fine. What about just a year younger? Maybe only 6 months? As a society(well, mostly), it was decided to draw it at 18. Where do YOU draw the line?

I don't draw it at age, I draw it at coercion. If someone is pressuring someone else into uploading nakes pics that's bad, age would just be an aggravating factor in the badness when deciding how much to punish.

While the idea of a six year old uploading naked pics makes me extremely uncomfortable I think that's a parenting issue (something has probably gone very wrong and that's what needs fixing, not the symptom of posting online), not something to be governed at the payment processor level.

Well really, I think it's the responsibility of the parents. In an ideal world, a parent can decide when their child is mentally ready to engage in an industry like that, and can also decide where the line is safe (teases? partial nudity? full softcore? hardcore? intense BDSM?)

The reality of course though is that not every child has a responsible parent, and many children have parents who would happily exploit their children to make a couple thousand extra dollars (which really sucks, but it's also just how the world is). So as a general legal policy, putting the burden on parents may lead to substantially more harm of children.

In my theoretical system, I would implement a testing process that determines if a person is mentally competent to make legal, financial, contractual and overall life decisions. The courts in the U.S. already do this under specific circumstances and can give a child limited recognition as an adult and that is determined entirely by a judge. I would just take it a step further and have a certification that would be noted on a state ID card rather than depending on specific legal circumstances. Generalizing a persons capabilities to make such decisions by biological age is problematic. Some people are not ready to make life altering decisions at their states/regions age of majority whereas some people are prepared to make such decisions sooner than others. This would not be perfect, but probably more scientific of a process than basing a decision on biological age. Who creates the test? Likely a panel of clinical psychologists, biologists, lawyers. Who administers the test? Schools for free, some job sites paid by employer, lawyers for a fee.

So what happens if a person never passes the test at any point in their life?

What happens when X or Y minority group claims the test is biased against them?

Also your claim is that an intelligent person who could perform well on an examination wouldn't also make risky sexual decisions when they are young?

So what happens if a person never passes the test at any point in their life?

Good question. Perhaps a more in-depth analysis of the person would be required to understand why they are not passing the test.

What happens when X or Y minority group claims the test is biased against them?

This is an existing pattern and I would defer to the legal system to mirror the existing processes. This pattern is replete throughout all intersections of society and government.

Also your claim is that an intelligent person who could perform well on an examination wouldn't also make risky sexual decisions when they are young?

I never said intelligent. I said "if a person is mentally competent to make legal, financial, contractual and overall life decisions". These things are not directly tied to intelligence alone and intelligence can be interpreted to mean many different things. The test would be written and reviewed yearly by clinical psychologists, biologists and lawyers. The current process for this that already exists depends entirely on a judge which is just a more experienced lawyer and a single persons judgement call that may be biased by their personal beliefs. I believe my suggestion would be a vast improvement over the existing system and would make it easier for kids put into precarious situations to move forward in life rather than sitting in emergency foster care at the mercy of strangers if they don't actually require it.

I personally know of a few people including a close friend that went through this process. She was declared an adult at age 14 and was appointed guardianship over her brother as the legal guardian with full custody. She handled this perfectly but all of this was the decision of a single judge. This is of course not the same as legally being at the age of majority/consent. In my method, there would be certifications for different aspects of responsibility much like endorsements for a car or aircraft license. These would be endorsements on their state ID.

How does section 230 not cover this? They're just a platform not a publisher right?

Thanks for explaining what this is about. There are lots of sites our there where sex workers ply their trade, and as far as I can tell have been allowed to do so by the payment processors for literally decades. The dozens of caming sites for a start. OnlyFans being banned for it while other sites are doing it far more openly would be bizarre.

However those sites now all have strong 230 compliance regimes, and I gather OnlyFans doesn't. OnlyFans could have implemented something similar. PornHub went down that route when confronted with similar pressure - they got of rid of all video's that went compliant. But OnlyFans.com have chosen not to. I wonder why?

This seems almost like an automatism by now, that platforms pivot away from sexual content after a while. Remember, in the beginning Snapchat was considered a sexting app where you could safely send nudes, although it was not advertized as such. They moved to a more regular social app after some time.

Tinder was initially sometimes described as an app to find people nearby who want to hook up. Like a one-night-stand-radar. It quickly positioned itself as more traditional dating app (although very focused on visuals).

And although not sexual, I think what happend to YikYak is similar. They started as this anarchic platform where you anonymously could talk shit about local topics and people. And then they realized that is probably not what they want because it causes outrage, so they tried to nerf that aspect (which is the whole allure of the platform).

Sometimes the sanitizing works (Snapchat), sometimes it kills the app (Tumblr, YikYak). But in any case I'd wish there would still be a place for the anarchic, 'unmoral', wild ideas in our society.


> OnlyFans is getting out of the pornography business.


  s/of the pornography //


>> OnlyFans is getting out of the pornography business.


> s/of the pornography //.

…is getting out business?

Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions." Now they have two problems.

-- Jamie Zawinski

I didn't spot any regexes here.

Matching an exact string is also a valid regex, and I think the GP's simple attempt to use the substitution syntax illustrates JWZ's point even better than a more complex expression. There are so many ways of screwing it up that even a simple joke contained a bug.

The notation s/<regex1>/<regex2> is perl for "replace every instance matching regex1 by regex2. Literal strings are regexes that match only themselves.

Not just perl. Also sed, which is likely where perl got it from.

Not just sed. Also ed, which is where sed got it from.

Yes, indeed. :)

Patreon’s 2020 annual net revenue is estimated at $80M. Last year onlyfans did $375M net revenue and 2021 is…was projected at $1.2B

Without porn, onlyfans will do maybe $100M in 2022. It’s the difference between a $1.5B valuation and a $20B valuation.

I think they mean that it should be s/the pornography //, rather than s/of the pornography //, so it's "out of business."

But then you still have “getting”

  s/getting \(.* \)the pornography /going \1/
Happy now? :)

Ay, yes, I was, you know, just making an off-hand comment.

It would have been better to get a code review or to test before checking-in that incorrect code.

Just because they think they need to always be growing, rather than just raking in the cash. Their value will go to 1/4 practically overnight is what I'm guessing.

This is a late reply but my interpretation of the events is that the payment processors drove this decision and I think that would be for one or two reasons.

1) There is a high chargeback and dispute rate on porn. I don't know why.

2) OnlyFans has underage performers who get on there using fake IDs and there is not a very good way to stop that.

It's not like they have a choice. Their business was only ever viable at the behest of their payment provider. The reason no one has made an OnlyFans before, and the reason why people have tried and failed, entirely comes down to this.

Nothing particularly noble about porn, but it irks me that payment providers act as unofficial censors of business. Why should legal businesses be denied access to the de facto legal tender of 21st century? And on a whim of unelected CEOs...

I suspect it has less to do with their puritanical values and more to do with the enormous amount of fraud in the industry and the customer support load it places on them from the husbands, wives and children who swear up and down they aren't responsible for the charges found on the bill.

Affiliate products and rebilling scams solved this problem 15 years ago. You just need a high risk merchant account provider who will accept the extra risk of chargebacks, most likely in exchange for higher fees.

Surely if the risk of fraud is an issue, the processing companies could simply price it into their models and charge the vendor a premium for it.

This is exactly it. Notably betting sites accept higher fees without issue. Obviously the margins take a hit but they're still profitable.

The main difference is that a gambler will keep throwing money (and encouraged to do so via dark patterns to keep the margins), whereas post-nut clarity is the main barrier to maintain the margins in porn.

Makes me wonder how much the payment networks themselves can ultimately make the final call. Even if you find some high risk payment processor in Monaco, that won’t help much if the Amex/MasterCard/Visa cartel blacklists you.

What I don’t understand is the selective enforcement – why doesn’t this happen more often? Who is pressuring the payment networks?

The card cartel doesn't care as long as they don't lose money in the process.

In general merchants don't deal with client cards directly but through payment processors. The chargeback process is usually manual (meaning it requires non-negligible resources) plus it impacts the fees the card cartel collects (if the chargeback is accepted).

High risk payment processors generally agree to pay card cartels for the fee lost if chargebacks are accepted, and sometimes even perform refunds to stay within a threshold of chargebacks. This, plus extra fraud monitoring/protection makes their service more expensive.

You don't need a processor in Monaco, CCBill or PaymentCloud are US based and offer that. Now, they shave a significant chunk of the transaction in flat+percentage fees, it can be anywhere from 4 to 15% depending on your profile.

Even if true, the enormous amount of fraud is in large part a result of their puritanical values. The fraud happens because it's an underground industry, it's an underground industry because of the puritanical values, etc.

This is like saying "drugs are bad because of all the violence" when the violence is mostly a symptom of how we treat drugs.

Well, ok, disable credit cards. But debit cards don’t have these protections, transactions are essentially immutable.

I get they are less popular in the US but are probably, hmm, 70% of cards in Europe? So that’s a viable option.

My Visa debit card has all of these protections.

Yeah, Visa and Mastercard debit cards carry the same fraud/abuse protections as a credit card. They usually don't cover all the extra crap the credit cards do (car rentals, etc) but they will absolutely give you your money back and perform chargebacks in cases of fraud or denial of services tendered.

Debit cards have exactly the same fraud protections as credit cards as far as I know in Australia.

Interesting. In Europe, with a credit card, you can effectively just say to the bank “nah I didn’t pay this” and it’s on the bank to prove otherwise (it’s harder/impossible where pin was used but in the web it’s fair game). Debit cards have protection for outright fraud (and even then somewhat limited), certainly no “umm no” simplicity.

Somewhat. You can have a charge to your account reversed, but it's not a common thing and the process isn't trivialised.

Source: almost accidentally undid an in-shop payment because their processor was based in a different town where i had never been. Realised at the last moment where the charge came from; bank was willing to undo.

Oh god I can’t believe I’m going to say this.

Crypto/Bitcoin, in keeping with the relationship the Internet and adult content have. Congrats Coinbase, Venmo, and others enabling censorship resistant crypto payments on your revenue bump.

Coinbase, Venmo, and others are not enabling censorship resistant crypto payments. Coinbase does track who and where you send your crypto to, so in theory they can control what you do with it. The workaround would be to send your crypto to wallets not associated with them, even still.

Coinbase and Venmo's role is analogous to a bank that offers account holders debit cards that can access CC networks, not the organizations in control of the CC networks themselves.

> so in theory they can control what you do with it.

And yet, that isn't happening to the same degree as visa or mastercard.

So, for whatever reason, visa and mastercard are currently, successfully, forcing OnlyFans to do this kind of policy change, whereas coinbase is not.

When the actual rubber meets the road, crypto is defacto, not as censored as visa or mastercard.

You could say the same about, say, Amex or Discover being de facto not as censored as Visa and Mastercard. The pressure is on Visa and Mastercard because they're where the vast majority of the money flow comes from.

Hate to break it to you, but all these processors that are facilitating crypto are actively policing what you do with it. They will restrict you or kick you off their platform for using crypto for things they don't want you to use it for.

Curious how much work they put into this. Do they follow coinbase->private wallet->multiple payees at different times for lower amounts?

Coinbase has an extremely advanced chain analysis system. Simple tricks like that are unlikely to defeat it.


Can you explain what the features on this page are being used for? Are you suggesting that if you buy coins from coinbase and they later detect that you are using them to pay for adult content that they will block your account?

Dark net people are pretty confident about tumbling. Or what about just converting coins.

Transferring your coins to a tumbler flags your wallet address in tools like Chainalysis. They can't see where you sent them post-tumble, but they can see that you sent them to a tumbler, and that alone will be flagged on your account.

They have very advanced risk compliance. They know about Every trick in the book.. all tracked. You would need to do way more than that.

Getting a payment provider an adult business using crypto is going to be even harder than getting a payment provider for just an adult business.

It took me minutes to setup a Coinbase account to send funds to SciHub. As long as OnlyFans isn’t hosting illegal content and they’re meeting financial regulations (no laundering, robust accounting), I don’t see a blocker. Yes, you’re going to have to meet up with fiat rails somewhere, which is where incumbent crypto exchanges operating legally come in (Coinbase, Gemini, Fidelity Digital Custodial).

It's easy enough for someone with basic tech skills to do this sure.

Onlyfans depends on joe average being able to do this (and not being scared off at the mention of the word "crypto")

I think crypto is about 5 - 10 years away from this point

This would be the perfect spark for such a shift.

I agree it's a ways off from a user experience point of view, but people are willing to put up with a lot of "effort" if it's something they really want. This very well could be the impetus necessary to make crypto used more broadly for payments.

With current tech this would just be a mobile wallet that holds stablecoins with some sort of built in funding mechanism.

> As long as OnlyFans isn’t hosting illegal content

The service promises huge amounts of money to, lets be honest, young women, to post nude photos of themselves. How much are you willing to be that every single photo, every video, of what has to be in the terabytes, is of someone over the age of 18. That no one 17 or younger, lured in by promises of big money, lied about their age to get it? That the platform's age verification system is 100% bulletproof and can't be fooled by photoshop.

You're basically asking for perfection. If that's the standard you hold anything to, then you can burn down everything and roll in the ashes.

Rather, the obvious reading of that is that onlyfans isn't primarily or deliberately hosting illegal content.

> It took me minutes to setup a Coinbase account to send funds to SciHub.

The issue is getting money from Coinbase into Wells Fargo or wherever, not getting it into Coinbase.

But the issue is with traditional payment providers: how do you transfer from crypto to your employees bank account, how do you tranfer to the IRS for tax purpose, etc. Now you have two problems: you look shady as fuck transfer large crypto amounts and you're already flagged for profiteering off underage porn...

As usual crypto is a solution that didnt solve the problem: how do you detect underage porn so that you can mark your profits in general.

But that’s not the problem. The problem is payments for services that aren’t illegal (legal age adult content), merely taboo and unwanted by a payments oligopoly (Visa and MasterCard).

Yes, crypto incurs drag from fees and inconvenience for a platform to transact in it, but it can’t turn your payments off overnight.

(and I make these comments as a crypto skeptic)

So, is there a market for a credit card that caters to these things?

Such a product could not be a credit card, as it would run on rails of your traditional providers (Visa, MasterCard, etc). If you want to avoid traditional payment rails who can financially deplatform you, it has to be crypto (much to my dismay). Could you use ACH or Instant Payments from the Fed? For as long as the banks that support those payment rails don’t give you the boot.

Think Privacy.com/Lithic.com but using crypto and instant fiat->crypto conversions when the payments are made. No chargebacks, no refunds. The crypto or stablecoin are decentralized rails.

> Such a product could not be a credit card, as it would run on rails of your traditional providers (Visa, MasterCard, etc).

You'd have to build your own infrastructure, but you could make an actual credit card. It would have to be super jank at first (you might even have to cut actual physical checks at first). Fundamentally, a credit card is just you paying for somebody's transactions, and billing them at the end of the month (and suing them if they don't pay up).

It would be slow, and the service would be horrible, but the people accepting your money don't have a ton of other options.

I think the market for that is growing, but they'd have to thread a very tight needle reputation wise. The credit card business relies heavily on trust, and the major networks like Visa have literally decades of reputation behind them.

And fundamentally the reason that credit cards have that customer trust is that they make it easy for customers to get refunds when the product isn't delivered, which is very hard to do for an Onlyfans-like business where there's no way to "return faulty goods" - standing in the middle between clients who think they didn't get what they paid for and sellers who think someone just wants to copy their pics without paying is not going to be a fun place to be.

But most coins are public ledger. And the "know your customer" exchanges are not allowing privacy protecting coins.

Zcash is on Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken, ...

And Zcash is not private by default (though can be shielded). Monero is private by default and is also available on Kraken and others.

Good point about exchanges with Monero. (It's also on Coinbase, of the others I listed.)

The "private by default" criticism is misleading:

- While this is important in a design which mixes your transaction with a limited set of other recent transactions, in Zcash the privacy set is all of the shielded transactions ever.

- It's not a "default" technically, it's a choice of transparent and shielded, both of which are useful. "Default" is a wallet UX question. I think the latest reference wallet auto-shields things so you don't have to remember to shield what comes in from a transparent transaction.

Maybe OnlyFans talk to these guys and see if they can worm something out


This is the first time I've seen x-rated Corporate Memphis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Memphis

Heh, there are already multiple streaming payments platforms built on the Bitcoin Lightning Network, and they're not oblivious to this market: https://twitter.com/get_zion/status/1428417401297723397

And as always, porn leads the way

Having worked as an adult programmer, they are really far behind technology trends. You're lucky if they use version control and staging servers.

Somehow there is this meme that porn sites are technically impressive due to their scale/small video playback enhancements, neglecting that they have a slightly more captive audience that will forgive small hitches than most streaming video providers.

The meme is dumb and should die imho.

Having worked at a porn site and a FAANG, I’d say my porn work was more impressive — because payment processors / ad providers / hosting companies / etc are so anti-adult-content, getting anything done is a lot harder.

It's not about quality of product. It's about motivation to deploy new technologies for the experience it enables.

Censorship resistant currencies are more like Monero…

LOL This is would actually work! Holy crap if OnlyFans actually started accepting bitcoin that would be incredible

transaction fees would be too high, transactions would take too long, and the transactions would be public.

OnlyFans could be the exchange. You send their public wallet the crypto buying a “OF coin” stable coin or similar (gift card funds essentially), they handle the distribution internally.

Best practice would be for patrons and content producers to have dedicated wallets for OnlyFans transactions, to prevent data leakage from ledger analysis.

You still have to go through an on-ramp provider or OF does the on-ramp but then probably lots of reg headache. Plus I bet impulse buying is the way to activate OF users. One way to solve this can be to find an on-ramp solution w/ UX on par with card payments and then handle pay-in and pay-outs via Zcash or Monero or using Aztec protocol.

Or just use a private crypto like Monero

If the problem is scrutiny from investors, I don't think it's a viable solution to become a payment processor and therefore attract additional scrutiny from banking regulators.

OnlyFanBucks heh. Don't actually need crypto for that, but if it's better, then whatever.

Lightning fixes all that.

It’s not that special. Other adult sites and shadier stuff push crypto or only do crypto

How do sites like Pornhub get paid then? Why can't OnlyFans switch to whatever provider they use?

pornhub is having exactly this issue.


from february

> "This is good for adoption! Next up, Onlyfans."

Sadly it doesn't seem to be working out as the crypto-enthusiast author might have wanted.


literally the link in the post above what you replied to.

ahhhh, I had misunderstood what they were referencing. I had assumed it meant things weren't working out for PH. When the quote meant to refer to how things weren't working out for OF.

Didn't they had the same problem a few months ago or so?

> How do sites like Pornhub get paid then?

At the moment I'm pretty sure they don't. At least, not via card-based payment systems.

Don't pornography companies typically use payment processors that are considered pretty shady? Or, these days I'd imagine most of them accept cryptocurrency.

They are "shady" only by circular reasoning, because they handle porn.

Objectively, they also charge much higher fees because of the high chargeback rates associated with porn. They also tend to process other unsavory transactions, which also have higher chargeback rates; hence they are "shady."

Right, but... is that 99% of their content, 99.9%, or 99.99%? Cause I bet it's at least 99%.

> The reason no one has made an OnlyFans before


I feel like Tumblr was actually growing when they made they change (which promptly killed their growth). I don't see how Only Fans is going to remain solvent without their core creators.

Possibly, but they will raise funds or do an IPO with the inertia and numbers from their porn days. One of the founders would be bought out in the next investment round.

Why isn't it their choice given the huge profit numbers presented in the leaked pitch deck? Are their server costs really more than hundreds of millions?

That was one first thought too

I think a lot of governments are starting to decide that social media and porn are a terrible waste of resources. If so, they're not wrong.

OF is a creator platform at heart and not necessarily tied to sexually explicit content except by reputation. There is a likely a huge non-porn market for helping creators of all types monetize their content. The question will be if they can actually get people to completely change their mind about what the platform is for.

For this use case, Patreon & OpenCollective (yes, OpenCollective) is far more established and offers many more features than OF. What's the point in using OF then?

Network effects. Start with taboo yet high demand market then pivot.

I'm not a market strategist, but I think you don't start to capitalize on the network effect by cutting away 95% of your network.

How and where and what USP (Unique Selling Point) is there to OF that Patreon/OpenCollective are missing?

"Network effects" doesn't mean jack, this isn't surfacing a plumber to a user on facebook because friends of friends have reviewed them in their local area..

I agree that there's a huge non-porn market that's likely largely preferable, but said market is already on Patreon which, I think most people would agree, is overall a better platform to begin with.

Honestly OnlyFans has a more reliable website with better UX. Patreon was there first and isn't bad enough to give creators an reason to move, but I don't think it's "better".

Yes there is a huge market for non-porn and it's all on Patreon.

And there's Ko-fi for people who do the things that go on Patreon and find Patreon lacking, but want a platform with name recognition. They even added memberships and Discord integration recently.

Perhaps, but OnlyFans will always be a porn site in consumer imaginations moving forward. Nobody’s going to put their wholesome knitting content on there moving forward

this seems fixable by rebranding

Can they possibly have such great IP that has any value over any 'I could clone that in a weekend' (i.e. longer than that, but still not long) jobs? Or other incumbents like Patreon?

They have a solid brand, it isn't what they want, but change that and what else is there?

I laughed reading the title, because it sounds just like 'TikTok bans dances', 'Instagram bans food and candid shots that aren't' to me. I don't use any of these sites, but that's the reputation they have/association I have for them; rebranding away from it when the core is so simple just seems nuts.

> Can they possibly have such great IP

I really have no idea. I also don't know whether rebranding is the right choice.

But they have the code, the infrastructure, the marketing department, and all the revenue from their adult services days. So that seems like a pretty big head start over just a clone of their web UI.

It's a bit of a headstart sure, but it's also a great way to ensure they hæmorrhage cash right along with all the users...

(Also, we're talking like it has a massive employee count, is that the case? Could be just a handful for all I know.)

OF is thot central.

I'm thinking of the wider insanity to create a economy so large as to almost acquire Web Scale, but only for a financial customer base of individuals who are lacking in the necessary skills and knowledge and motivation and experience to organise themselves into the pressure groups you absolutely have to have prepared to defend your business in the morality courts of post WWII America. Larry Flynt had his work cut out for him with much more modest content.

EDIT to add :

If you argue ad absurdam that everyone is going to be exposed to everyone for moral judgement of their rights to online existence, then maybe we need a more sophisticated and practically judicious and efficient system of adjudication of the legal entitlements and freedoms endowed to everyone, than "I know it when I see it ".

This needs a logical codex. Literally a logical reduction of the comprehensive semantics used to describe unacceptable content. From which we can apply triage to emergency cases of accused indecency. Too many cases are heard so immediately in the courts of public opprobrium exclusively in hostile environments where the most sympathetic media is bound and restricted from venturing any actual support virtually ensuring that the rights of the publisher are lost. This is ignoring the issues of commercial withdrawal of essential services.

Is this a Markov chain or something?

I thought the same, but it makes sense, if you go past the strange grammar structure and pompous words.

My liberal translation:

It's crazy that companies try to scale workforce like you scale compute units in the cloud. This wouldn't be the same if the workforce organized itself in unions, both against the platform and the moral police.

If arguing that everyone on these platforms would be judged in front of everyone else, maybe a legal framework dictating what people can and cannot do is the way to go (I think it sarcastically implies that the "everything which is not forbidden is allowed" principle would be violated).

Edit: it's very complex to describe what unacceptable content is. This will cause many cases of indecency accusations, which will turn the public against them, leaving no freedom of media per se.

Wow thanks, I see what you mean. I think “public opprobrium” threw me off as a really unnatural thing to write, run on sentences aside

You used many words and said nothing.

Its the inverse of the "Kevin from the office" meme

Why pursue brevity in speech when a veritable volley of verbiage will provide the necessary and sufficient verisimilitude?

Verbosity and grandiloquence is no replacement for clarity of thought

Extra points for all V words hahaha

> This is going to be corporate suicide on a greater scale than Tumblr's policy.

Strong disagree. They lined their coffers and now it's time to pivot. In fact, it's probably the perfect time to pivot. They are still relatively unknown, and their reputation hasn't been tarnished. Patreon is ripe for disruption.

Pornography is not how you become a billion-dollar unicorn, which is I'm sure what they're eyeing (especially after their most recent raise).

> They are still relatively unknown, and their reputation hasn't been tarnished.

Are you sure about that? This company seems pretty well known in the creator space, but not for hosting anything other than porn. At least in all communities I follow, having an OnlyFans account is synonymous with selling porn.

> Pornography is not how you become a billion-dollar unicorn

Pornhub would like to have a word with you. I'd say that, in fact, porn is one of the easiest ways to get there (as shown, for example, by OFs enormous growth).

I don't know - OF has one type of users, Patreon has another type of users. OF would need to completely re-brand themselves, name change and all - because seriously, what non-adult (or those very close to adult content) content-creators would use OF as a platform for their work?

Onlyfans is synonymous with camgirls and porn

You absolutely must be living in an alternate reality than I am.

1. Onlyfans is extremely well know to the point of being a meme, you couldn't be more wrong. Like what rock would you have to be hiding under to not have heard of OF?

2. Exactly what about Patreon seems ripe for disruption? Looking for something specific here, hopefully something that wouldn't apply to most every other company.

3. ??? But only-fans literally became a billion-dollar unicorn on the back of porn. Like, I'm speechless, really, I am.

Right, when his stream viewers ask Grand Pooh Bear (well known Mario player) "Do you have an OnlyFans?" they are probably joking and the reference is obviously about pornography. GPB laughs it off, after all he's in the Men Of Mario charity calendar and he's referred to himself as something like "Basically a CamGirl", but the implication is clearly not "Do you also post videos of playing video games on OnlyFans?".

Whereas for example GPB and other Mario players have TikTok, Instagram, Twitter and so on, full of Mario, because duh, that's what they do. Why would you expect say, Pangea Panga's Twitter to be about dinosaur fossils, Defender to do TikTok dances or CarlSagan42 to... OK, Carl is different.

I've not seen anybody ask Geek (another popular Mario player) whether she's on OnlyFans but I would expect that if they did ask that they'd get banned from her chat, because again, nobody thinks "Oh yeah, I bet she'd charge money for Mario videos" the implication would be that it's porn.

> Onlyfans is extremely well know to the point of being a meme, you couldn't be more wrong. Like what rock would you have to be hiding under to not have heard of OF?

I disagree. OnlyFans is well-known in streamer/gamer/internet/Tumblr/Twitter culture. Ask anyone on the street and most people won't know about the porn connection. They probably won't even know what OF is.

> 3. ??? But only-fans literally became a billion-dollar unicorn on the back of porn. Like, I'm speechless, really, I am.

They haven't, though. They "only" made ~400 million last year and can't find investors (did you even read through the Axios report?). Porn is bad for business. I'm surprised people are surprised. Patreon literally did this exact same thing[1] (ditched explicit content after initially allowing it).

[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbqwwj/patreon-suspension-of...

Hard disagree.

It's been mentioned in jokes, multiple times, in prime time current affairs shows in my country.

I expect almost everyone I know under the age of 60 knows what it is. From my under 18 relatives, through the accountants and builders and electricians, to the coffee shop owners, bar staff... and of course all the systems & software people I work with.

> They haven't, though. They "only" made ~400 million last year and can't find investors (did you even read through the Axios report?). Porn is bad for business. I'm surprised people are surprised. Patreon literally did this exact same thing[1] (ditched explicit content after initially allowing it).

Yeah I'm not sure how to respond, since you don't seem to understand anything the same way I do. Like zero points agreement here, which is why I opened with we must be living in a different reality.

When you somebody says a "billion dollar unicorn" they are talking about valuation not revenue. Also the vast majority, effectively all of OF's revenue is related to the adult content they are going to be removing.

If a top-notch sushi chef puts OnlyFans on their business card, I'm not going to expect them to be preparing fish on their page. They would be doing it on tiktok though.

OnlyFans is instagram but for porn. If they want to escape that, they're gonna have to rebrand.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact