Surprisingly, the images open just fine on this machine! Imgur sends me the actual .png and not the HTML wrapped version that requires JS. Maybe they look at the agent to decide what to send.
> the merchant chooses how much personal info they want or need to collect, and Apple Pay doesn’t prevent them from asking you for that at checkout.
Does this happen when shopping in-person?
> of course that info would be there! In this example, my checkout page was for a physical item so I needed the customer’s shipping info.
They don't need my name and address if I'm buying eggs in a grocery store. Does Apple/Google require my consent to share that info when it's obviously not required? Is it similar to a terms & conditions, or shrink-wrapped EULA? (ie take it or leave it)
For POS payments, usually only the device account number (DPAN) is shared with the merchant. Even the name is usually redacted, similar to contactless and as opposed to chip or magstripe payments.
All of the additional details mentioned in the article are only shared when you pay "online" – but that includes scanning a QR code on your phone and paying in Safari or an App Clip, which is something I've seen in a few restaurants these days.
That way, the restaurant gets as much as they ask for, which can include your name, your address, and your email address. I think this is usually displayed on the payment sheet, but it didn't really register for me the first time I used it in some restaurant. Now I make sure to ask the waiter for an actual terminal to tap or just give them my physical card.
"Open-source developer infrastructure for internal tools (APIs, background jobs, workflows and UIs). Self-hostable alternative to Airplane, Pipedream, Superblocks and a simplified Temporal with autogenerated UIsm and custom UIs to trigger workflows and scripts as internal apps.
Scripts are turned into sharable UIs automatically, and can be composed together into flows or used into richer apps built with low-code. Supported script languages supported are: Python, TypeScript, Go, Bash, SQL, and GraphQL. "
If you search HN, you'll find the creator of Windmill comment on comparisons to airplane.dev:
> Spent literal hours on it collecting citations and what have you. Within a couple hours the page was deleted
> No chance to explain. No chance to reword. Just gone completely
I've had the same experience. It requires too little effort to dump other people's contributions. I don't understand the super users' motivations in cases like this.
> I wonder if society should step in to prevent those men from getting hooked.
Clear disclosure and consent is required.
If the person paying for this feature knew it was just roleplay with a person pretending to be the model, I don't think any reasonable person would have an issue with it.
very odd comment, and from a brand new account. Makes me wonder what your motivations are.
You didn't address anything in the parent comment. You seem to be responding to onlyfans in general, not the fraudulent usage of the chat feature the parent comment is addressing.
> And he clearly doesn't reference the article with the hook 'problem', he keeps it generic: "(the girl selling and the guy buying)"
They are clearly responding to the article, which is about fraudulent use of the chat feature to extract money from men. It's not about selling pictures or videos.
You seem to be taking all of this as a personal attack on your choice of entertainment, or to create division in the thread.
FWIW, OP posted a comment on a message board for said article. Per my reading, they seem to be talking generally about sex work rather than the specific sex-work-fraud as mentioned in the article. Surely the comment is at least vague enough that it could be taken either way.
Imagine if dating apps paid you to keep your profile active even if you have no interest in meeting anyone. They pay you $5/month per match with a minimum of 5 messages before ghosting. It keeps lonely men on the platform. For some people, OnlyFans chat is no different.
There should be clear disclosures that there is potential the other account is outsourced to a different person, or a LLM.
I'm having trouble finding it now, but I recall there being a rumor that the Bumble CEO was fired for permitting fake accounts to exist, so that usage appeared high. I think it had to do with allowing virtual phone numbers
EDIT: Wow.... there are a lot people in this thread pushing back on the parent comment suggesting outsourced model chats are immoral, or not an ethical way to make a living.
> Imagine if dating apps paid you to keep your profile active even if you have no interest in meeting anyone. They pay you $5/month per match with a minimum of 5 messages before ghosting. It keeps lonely men on the platform. For some people, OnlyFans chat is no different.
What many dating apps do is very close to this. They encourage fake female accounts to keep men on the platform, and what you are being shown is fake/inactive to a large extent. LLMs are the next step of this, I wouldn't be surprised if there are already tons of them. The dating app business is one of the most scammy businesses that exist.
There are some exceptions to this (mostly specific local apps), but they are far and few between.
I'm American. Most of my friends/family don't even pretend to budget. Looking at reports of the debt loads of Americans, it's pretty clear that we overspend. So if we do budget, we don't follow it.
your comment was about "Americans" generally. Not about Americans you know.
pointlessly divisive, stereotyping nationality, and without merit. exactly the type of comment we need less of on HN. I replied because it prevents you from deleting the comment.
EDIT:
ah, I see that they are now replying with a random article found after hastily searching for sources to confirm their bias with commentary from * squints * a "financial therapist." A CNBC article that is a submarine (as coined by PG[1]), meant to advertise OppLoans.
don't believe me? see all the articles written by CNBC for OppLoans:
lol, I didn’t realize suggesting Americans don’t budget would even be controversial, let alone considered an attack. Attacking people with the rules isn’t constructive. If you think my comment isn’t appropriate, just flag it.
Verifying phone number is one of the last things which is still effective when fighting against bot registrations. Alternative is to ask money for registration.
Here is idea for hacker news crowd: make service which is a proxy for phone number validation: user needs to validate his phone number once in that app and any other 3rd-party service can ask this app for security code which confirms phone number ownership. We use something similar by offloading phone number confirmation via Telegram bot. Also this proxy service could optionally offload management of "bad" phone numbers used by spammers and add other protections
I'm 100% ok with this. I have the choice of using a Visa/MC gift card I bought with cash. Same as I can do with Netflix. Better than linking a unique ID I use everywhere else.
I think what bugs me the most is that there's no direct need for the phone. It's reasonable to give my phone number to a doctor's office because I need to hear from them over the phone.
> I have the choice of using a Visa/MC gift card I bought with cash.
Technically you can also pay for a burner service to get temporary phone numbers to receive SMSs for registering to services. Can’t attest if any of them are good or trustworthy. I recently looked into it but everything I found was a subscription and/or shady looking.
That's why we offloaded phone validation to Telegram - it is too costly to send SMS in other countries than our home market and spammers are finding ways to get phone numbers for free from different VoIP providers. We need to implement complicated SMS sending limit logic to avoid abuse
And the person who decided that the settings (disable usage for training data) and (save prompts) can't be individually controlled. Also that the default is that your data is used for training purposes. Both are clear indications that privacy was no importance to them.
It was previously a Google form without any confirmation. As of late October, they moved it to this privacy center that they keep conveniently well hidden.
> https://i.imgur.com/shozUbO.png
> https://i.imgur.com/F22p3Z8.png
> If you're seeing this message, that means JavaScript has been disabled on your browser, please enable JS to make Imgur work.
Hmmm...