The Ultimate Superheroines Forum

I've been looking at various sources on this. From what I gather its a ban on doing any public content in which someone maybe able to witness a sexual act or nudity. Is there other restrictions as well that come into play? I know they have their standard restrictions of incest, bestiality etc. so you can post nudes and some items.

I would imagine most producers steer their paying customers to other site locations for the racy stuff anyway.

That's bad news, it seems its being made harder and harder for creators to be supported while standard p*rn sites can seemingly exist without harassment.
A lot of heroine work doesn't even need to feature nudity or full sex to be erotic.

Craziness. :(

It'll be a boon for their competitors. Bad news for them, though. Seems to have been at the pushing of a big "anti-trafficking" faction in Congress that's claiming (without any proof that I know of) that OF is promoting child pornography. It sucks.

NotUv2 wrote: ↑

2 years ago

It'll be a boon for their competitors. Bad news for them, though. Seems to have been at the pushing of a big "anti-trafficking" faction in Congress that's claiming (without any proof that I know of) that OF is promoting child pornography. It sucks.

That could tie in with the child porn thing. Basically people filming children in public.

OnlyFans has had a ban on public nudity for quite a while.
What's coming on October 1 is a ban on sexually explicit material.

I expect this puts the line somewhere between Playboy and Penthouse (back when they were printed magazines) -- basically, they're dialing it back to become a cheesecake factory. OnlyFans will let you show the guitar, just no closeups on the strings and definitely no strumming, picking, or slapping.

OnlyFans has probably figured that just by ditching the sexually explicit content they can attract enough wholesome business to replace it -- they already have a lot of creators who stop short of the porn line. But I wonder if too many heavy tippers will give up now that they know she's never going all the way. Nah, hope springs eternal...

I also wonder where the sex workers will go. How long before Visa & Mastercard make them all subcontractors of MindGeek and purveyors of plain vanilla content.

There are already competitors champing at the bit, I expect. It's the 21st-century version of cops rousting the hooker strolls. The profession just sets up shop somewhere else. The best bet would be something decentralized and blockchain-based like PornRocket, which would be harder to shut down by gambits like the one being used against OnlyFans.

Worst case, people are forced to the Dark Web or back into working the streets (which would be supremely ironic; the FOSTA-SESTA legislation responsible for all this is supposed to be "anti-trafficking," but it's street-based sex work that's at highest risk of driving trafficking).

I doubt OnlyFans would voluntarily gamble on making up the difference with "wholesome" content. They're just being left with no choice. They would certainly have to be idiots not to be able to see that porn is the bulk of what built their platform, or that Tumblr made that same gamble and crashed its entire business model a few years ago (Tumblr was valued at over a billion dollars in 2013, and sold to WordPress for three million dollars a year after Verizon's porn ban). The market for porn simply can't be compensated for with chefs and fitness instructors.

NotUv2 wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Worst case, people are forced to the Dark Web

Why is that the worst case? It would be good if opting out of the status quo was normalised. People should realise that

"The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies."

Payment processors and banks were once about facilitating free trade between individuals. Are they now? There's a reason that the "dark web", cryptocurrencies etc are demonised. They offer a solution.

Cryptocurrency and blockchain have their own reputation problems (crypto in particular has acquired a rep as a money-laundering tool), but I wouldn't call them interchangeable with the dark web.

But anywhere commerce is driven to the underground economy it gets more dangerous to do, which is true for sex work: everywhere that "Nordic model" anti-prostitution laws are instituted, for example, the result is more violence against sex workers. (The central fiction of the Nordic model is supposed to be that it's criminalizing the buyers, not the prostitutes, but in practice there's little real difference.) Given that Tor is supposed to be notoriously slow, I expect it couldn't be used to run a site like OnlyFans; its main use would be to set up in-person sex work, with all the attendant risks. That's guesswork on my part as I'm not a dark web user myself, but it seems to track with known dark web SW operations like Escort Ireland.

NotUv2 wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I doubt OnlyFans would voluntarily gamble on making up the difference with "wholesome" content. They're just being left with no choice. They would certainly have to be idiots not to be able to see that porn is the bulk of what built their platform, or that Tumblr made that same gamble and crashed its entire business model a few years ago (Tumblr was valued at over a billion dollars in 2013, and sold to WordPress for three million dollars a year after Verizon's porn ban). The market for porn simply can't be compensated for with chefs and fitness instructors.

They're not being forced. They're chasing investors -- and celebrities -- because it's an easier way for the rich principals to get obscenely rich. When MindGeek was pushed, they didn't close PornHub, they just dumped the amateurs.

OnlyFans could tighten up record keeping and content submission around the edges and soldier on getting paid, but being close to the edge is a lot more risk and work.

It remains to be seen how OnlyFans defines "sexually explicit content." I bet all the suggestive stuff stays -- not just chefs and fitness instructors, but cosplayers and lingerie models.

And how is this policed. I can't imagine someone's job is to go through all the pics to look for banned stuff.. (sign me up). More than likely it will be based on reporting. So Barbie can report on Brandi and get her site shut down kind of the way drug dealers rat on drug dealers.

Also Visa. Visa on a whim can simply go Spanish Inquisition and shut everyone down. I'm all for free market but this is not free market. Government upholds a monopoly here in which its extremely difficult to become a credit card company. Given they gate keep Visa should not be allowed to do whatever they want.

Imagineer wrote: ↑

2 years ago

They're not being forced. They're chasing investors -- and celebrities -- because it's an easier way for the rich principals to get obscenely rich. When MindGeek was pushed, they didn't close PornHub, they just dumped the amateurs.

Well, I expect it's a bit of the stick and a bit of the carrot. There is also the matter of Congressional investigation being a bad thing when chasing new funding after being valued at over a billion. (I'm not sure that tightened record-keeping would in fact satisfy the antis.)

To whatever extent it's chasing revenue they imagine is going to replace porn, it's genuinely stupid, I think. Not gonna happen. They really should be looking at Tumblr's downward spiral for a glimpse of their own future. And cosplayers and lingerie models are only a tiny slice of the porn market that powered them to this point, they're not the buffet. Tumblr found that out the hard way, too.

In reality all porn people are looking for is a credit card processor that's not going to shut them down cause they get some righteous bug up their butts.

Also I wonder if China is influencing OF's decisions. Unless China owns them already.

The Congressional investigation would fizzle if OnlyFans followed PornHub's approach.

But I think OnlyFans has stars in their eyes over the Titillating Celebrity Effect.

OnlyFans is majority-owned by porn magnate Leonid Radivinsky, who bought his way in from the founding Stokely family in late 2018. Axios reported that Radivinsky is looking at new investors as his way to cash out.

I don't disagree that it's a dumb move for the business, but that doesn't make it a dumb move for the present ownership.

As for comparisons to Tumblr, that platform's fate was exaggerated by Yahoo's and Verizon's stupidity. (See also AT&T's experiment with buying up content.)

Personally, I wish OnlyFans would collapse catastrophically, unable to scrub their brand, and unable to find the investors or content creators they want.

I also wish sex workers would get together and build their own platform.

Imagineer wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I also wish sex workers would get together and build their own platform.

They do but then they charge higher premiums. The last Adult con I went to in Vegas was sponsored by companies that have these live chat cam girls all with independent businesses going through the company hook up website. But then you're a slave to that company's rates.

I don't want OF to fail cause we have models here who make their living there. But yes I think some rich porn companies could start more competitors and just leave it adult. Again only issue is being a slave to Visa.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Imagineer wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I also wish sex workers would get together and build their own platform.

They do but then they charge higher premiums.

Why is that? Is it because they can't get big enough to get payment processing terms as favorable as OnlyFans? Or because OnlyFans operated at a loss in order to (illegally) disrupt the market and gobble up business?

I don't want OF to fail cause we have models here who make their living there.

My wish is predicated on the company's basically stated intent to run sex workers out on a rail. I don't harbor any ill will toward creators who can thrive under the new model, but I'd suggest anyone depending on a technical service provider like this for their livelihood be forever hedging. Oligopolies suck.

I love a good persecution at the hands of American conservativism story as much as the next guy but in this case, from what I understand from chaps at Raine group the main driver here is that Onlyfans is basically trying to raise money so majority owner Leo Radivinsky can cash out

By any stretch it's a great tech unicorn but seems investors are wary (to be fair it is not unusual for VC partnership agreements to have a load of do not invest boilerplate that includes porn etc) plus, hard to see the VC exit there since the current Onlyfans model would struggle to get listed on a major recognised exchange

the numbers are great though, someone on Reddit should create an old style fund, sell shares and then invest in it and pay divis

(from crica March 2022 projected)
Gross merchandise value (GMV):

2020: $2.2 billion
2021: $5.9 billion
2022: $12.5 billion
Net revenue:

2020: $375 million
2021: $1.2 billion
2022: $2.5 billion

Over 50% of OnlyFans revenue in March came from paid subscriptions, while more than 30% came via chats. The rest was a combination of tips/streams and paid posts for free accounts.
Free cash flow:

2020: $150 million
2021: $620 million
2022: $1.2 billion
Total amount paid to creators since inception: $3.2 billion

More than 300 creators earn at least $1 million annually.
Around 16,000 creators earn at least $50,000 annually.
More than seven million "fans" spend on OnlyFans each month. It has even more users who only consume free content.

Be fair, lionbadger, the conservatism isn't just American.

A porn investment fund is a fun idea. Lots to worry about, though. Beating up on sex-related business is one thing people will cross the political aisles for. And investors seeking to maximize their returns would push for worker exploitation.

Imagineer wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Be fair, lionbadger, the conservatism isn't just American.

well no, but what is the point of having that there internet thing if you aren't going to poke people with a stick a bit

(will just gloss over the uk conservative party plans for age recognition of internet porn users that they were going to partner with mindgeek to run. literally a plan to have mind geek take passport copies (uk is probably unique in europe for not having ID cards) of anyone who wanted to access a porn site in the uk)

lionbadger wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Imagineer wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Be fair, lionbadger, the conservatism isn't just American.

well no, but what is the point of having that there internet thing if you aren't going to poke people with a stick a bit

It's also the American FESTA-SOSTA legislation that's actually relevant to the case of OnlyFans, to be fair. That's bipartisan but its biggest drivers are definitely conservative legislators. But yeah, the "stick it to sex workers whenever possible" impulse goes well beyond that.

Interesting point from the chaps at Raine Group. (That's the integrated merchant bank? That Raine Group?)

NotUv2 wrote: ↑

2 years ago

lionbadger wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Imagineer wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Be fair, lionbadger, the conservatism isn't just American.

well no, but what is the point of having that there internet thing if you aren't going to poke people with a stick a bit

It's also the American FESTA-SOSTA legislation that's actually relevant to the case of OnlyFans, to be fair. That's bipartisan but its biggest drivers are definitely conservative legislators. But yeah, the "stick it to sex workers whenever possible" impulse goes well beyond that.

Interesting point from the chaps at Raine Group. (That's the integrated merchant bank? That Raine Group?)

You complained about me bringing up politics. Does anyone get to refute you on this or is this just you having a say. You brought up politics.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

You complained about me bringing up politics. Does anyone get to refute you on this or is this just you having a say. You brought up politics.

Hey, if you think it's reportable then do your thing, bro. The politics I'm mentioning do happen to be directly relevant to the subject matter and not a random interjection in a review thread, what I've spoken of is a verifiable fact, and I'm not out to bait or antagonize anyone. So I'd hope that all would earn me some of that moderator leniency that has hitherto protected you.

(I actually mentioned politics in my first post in this thread, by the way. Really all I'm doing is further describing the Congressional faction I already brought up. So it's interesting that you're only now getting shirty, I wonder why.)

NotUv2 wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

You complained about me bringing up politics. Does anyone get to refute you on this or is this just you having a say. You brought up politics.

Hey, if you think it's reportable then do your thing, bro. The politics I'm mentioning do happen to be directly relevant to the subject matter and not a random interjection in a review thread, what I've spoken of is a verifiable fact, and I'm not out to bait or antagonize anyone. So I'd hope that all would earn me some moderator leniency.

I don't care about reporting you. I care about consistency and not someone balling their head off when they are disagreed with then trying to shut down discussion by screaming "politicizing". YOU brought up "conservative" first.

BTW I don't side with the scumbag conservatives but the US has been progressive for the last 35 years. Neo cons have no social power. What we're seeing is the Anita Sarkesian style of censorship not the Jack Thompson style. Neo cons didn't turn Teela into SheMan.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

YOU brought up "conservative" first.

No. Read the thread.

(I apologize for no other remarks I have made anywhere else, and frankly, dragging that shit into this thread is tiresome.)

I will acknowledge that it's to some degree subjective, however, who has been the biggest driver of the SESTA-FOSTA legislation. I said what I said simply because the public champions of it that I know of, the people who are out front of it and making the case, all have (R) next to their names.

That said, I don't have some unique insider track on legislative process and AFAICT both sides of the aisle are fully guilty of enabling it, so I don't want to seem like I'm minimizing that and it's perfectly possible that the original claim was mistaken. If so, I'll be willing to own that. Even Kamala Harris voted for it, after all, and to be clear, I don't agree with the Nordic Model bullshit that plays on the center-left any more than you agree with scumbag conservatives.

Dance puppets! Dance

Laughs villainously at the mayhem you can cause on the internet just for saying politicians are dicks!

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

NotUv2 wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

You complained about me bringing up politics. Does anyone get to refute you on this or is this just you having a say. You brought up politics.

Hey, if you think it's reportable then do your thing, bro. The politics I'm mentioning do happen to be directly relevant to the subject matter and not a random interjection in a review thread, what I've spoken of is a verifiable fact, and I'm not out to bait or antagonize anyone. So I'd hope that all would earn me some moderator leniency.

I don't care about reporting you. I care about consistency and not someone balling their head off when they are disagreed with then trying to shut down discussion by screaming "politicizing". YOU brought up "conservative" first.

BTW I don't side with the scumbag conservatives but the US has been progressive for the last 35 years. Neo cons have no social power. What we're seeing is the Anita Sarkesian style of censorship not the Jack Thompson style. Neo cons didn't turn Teela into SheMan.

This kind of thing is always religious, and it's always from the political right. And I know a lot of right wing pervs don't want to hear that, but when you make unholy alliances with the religious right (or when Ronald Reagan does), you invite these fucked up puritans to the big table.

Lefties might cluck disapprovingly at sexism and racism but they don't have the power to make it go away. They can make some of it go away in movies and music, sometimes, because creative groups tend to be socially liberal, but they don't have connections at the levels that make real change. You think Bernie Sanders can make Mastercard change their rules? The Vast Leftwing Conspiracy Sponsored By Soros couldn't even get a female led MCU movie until they'd been around for ten years. They don't have the power to force a multibillion dollar website to commit corporate suicide.

Here's a Twitter thread on the various Christian groups behind this recent shitstorm.




Also, as far as bringing up politics goes, this is as political an issue as it gets. And it effects all of us. Not politicians of either stripe, us grubby pervs and the incredibly patient and attractive women who cater to our weirdness. So let's not get after each other about it.

Social conservatives may be the most organized and persistent antagonists, but what matters is that nobody in politics stands up for sex workers. And that's because sex work is still taboo. The politics is effectively non-partisan because society as a whole is against it.

Imagineer wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Social conservatives may be the most organized and persistent antagonists, but what matters is that nobody in politics stands up for sex workers. And that's because sex work is still taboo. The politics is effectively non-partisan because society as a whole is against it.

Exactly this. Despite the size of the porn industry very few people are going to go on the record and defend it. Especially not politicians because you cannot argue against 'Think of the children' just as you can't argue against 'the troops' or 'apple pie'.

What is really needed is some sort of Spartacus moment where people just own up to liking to look at hot people doing hot things and we all collectively get over it.

Alas as it is, everybody keeping their heads down. Except for the sex workers themselves of course, and all power to them.

Dogfish wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Imagineer wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Social conservatives may be the most organized and persistent antagonists, but what matters is that nobody in politics stands up for sex workers. And that's because sex work is still taboo. The politics is effectively non-partisan because society as a whole is against it.

Exactly this. Despite the size of the porn industry very few people are going to go on the record and defend it. Especially not politicians because you cannot argue against 'Think of the children' just as you can't argue against 'the troops' or 'apple pie'.

What is really needed is some sort of Spartacus moment where people just own up to liking to look at hot people doing hot things and we all collectively get over it.

Alas as it is, everybody keeping their heads down. Except for the sex workers themselves of course, and all power to them.

That would be nice, but I don't think we will ever get that Spartacus moment. I hope I am wrong.

Kind of along the same lines I know two artists who got banned off Patreon. Omac and Dr. Evil

BTW check out Dr. Evil's subscribe star
https://subscribestar.adult/dr-evil-s-s ... peril-club

As Professor Farnsworth would say: Good news, everyone!

I don't know why, but quoted tweets here are forever "loading tweet..."

Thank you to everyone for making your voices heard.

We have secured assurances necessary to support our diverse creator community and have suspended the planned October 1 policy change.

OnlyFans stands for inclusion and we will continue to provide a home for all creators.

An official communication to creators will be emailed shortly.

Reporter Samantha Cole asked for clarification and OnlyFans told them this:

The proposed October 1, 2021 changes are no longer required due to banking partners' assurances that OnlyFans can support all genres of creators.

So is Leonid stuck with his 75% of OnlyFans? Will MindGeek offer to buy, and will he sell to them? Does this pin OnlyFans as an income investment?

No doubt there's some brand damage, but I expect a lot of folks will stay put because it's easier, as long as the checks clear and another platform doesn't make a compelling offer.

I saw that. Good to see, but I wonder if it's in time to reverse the damage. Sex workers had already starting decamping for other sites and had lost revenue because of this nonsense, and are unlikely to be reassured to hear they're only "suspending" the policy change. One of those quoted in the Buzzfeed article on this puts it this way: "I think it’s hilarious now watching them try to pick up the pieces from a vase they threw at the wall."

On the other hand, that same person is going to stay on OnlyFans, because fundamentally she can't trust any other site not to pull this shit once they feel they've made enough money out of porn and want to "go legit." So, maybe OF will hang on to the top spot despite these shenanigans.

Now that they realize they can't get away with just burning the sex workers, they're telling more of a story.

Financial Times article yesterday says it's all the banks' fault:
https://www.ft.com/content/7b8ce71c-a87 ... 069ca0480b
(They could have said that from the beginning, but instead they threw sex workers under the bus to tell a pro-investment story and get out with a larger fortune.)

I guess if I'd wanted their side of things I'd have been following them on Twitter *shudder*, because they posted this back on the 21st:

Dear Sex Workers,

The OnlyFans community would not be what it is today without you.

The policy change was necessary to secure banking and payment services to support you.

We are working around the clock to come up with solutions.

#SexWorkIsWork

Yeah I figured it was Visa or some bank rattling the cages.

This is a great thing, and here's why.

When the religious whackjobs used Mastercard to go after PornHub, what did we hear about when it went down? We heard stories about child porn, revenge porn, women being abused and raped on the site. And a lot of people took this at face value, and a lot of people in the porn industry didn't speak up for PornHub, because really why would you? Why would anybody give a shit about a site that built itself up through theft and profits via exploitation. So PornHub got reamed, probably poetic justice.

OnlyFans though? As soon as this went down the voices people heard where not the usual god squadders and anti-trafficking grifters telling tall tales about all the horrible things on the platform, because they had even less to go on than usual. They went for OF based on a whole heap of nothing hoping that yelling THINK OF THE CHILDREN would be enough. As it turned out the people who spoke out where the users, the sex workers and their clients and it created an overall sense that what was going on was not a legitimate protection effort, but a credit card company far, far, far exceeding it's mandate as a financial service to leverage it's power and dictate internet content policy.

And so Mastercard has backed off, and OnlyFans has gone back to business as usual.

And I suspect this will be seen as a body-blow for the religious puritans and their pals in anti-sex work circles because it shows that their old bullshit won't work.

Great point about a fundamental difference between PornHub and OnlyFans, Dogfish. There was a good Twitter thread a few days ago about how coverage of the two crises was different -- most media spoke to (parroted) the anti-sexwork zealots about PornHub, but spoke to sex workers about OnlyFans -- but attributed it to the hard work of advocacy. I think now that you point it out the two businesses' different relationships with creators had a lot to do with it, maybe more than anything else.

But I don't think it's accurate to say that Mastercard backed off. Mastercard didn't put the squeeze on OnlyFans in the first place, and Mastercard didn't relax policy afterward. It's the banks in the middle who got squirrelly, with a side dish of OnlyFans wanting an easier path to greater wealth. Such is Mastercard's influence that they didn't directly pull any strings here and yet the puppet had a payment paroxysm.