The main thing I’m getting from the article is that adults who try to profit from abusing children on OnlyFans get arrested.
Comment on Child predators are exploiting kids on OnlyFans despite vows of safety
jeffw@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I’ve said this for years as others online have claimed OF is so safe. You don’t know the full story. It is not necessarily a more ethical business model than traditional porn
Zak@lemmy.world 2 months ago
jeffw@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The ones who get caught, yeah.
Zak@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It seems to me that OnlyFans takes several steps that make it easier for police and prosecutors to do their job, some of which are detailed in the article. What additional steps do you think they should take?
jeffw@lemmy.world 2 months ago
None. My point is that there’s a shit ton of abuse out there. Only a tiny amount is caught
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It’s definitely more ethical in that it allows the creators to get more of the money.
But that doesn’t mean there aren’t issues. It’s not a silver bullet that fixes an entire (sometimes problematic) industry.
JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 2 months ago
Also the article isn’t even so much about underaged users trying to get on the platform to post pictures of themselves or trying to gain access to porn, OF seems to be fairly good at keeping them out, it’s about adults posting content involving minors and that’s a lot harder problem to prevent without literally going through every upload manually.
Microw@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Yeah.
That’s really not easy to catch, no matter what platform you are. Some people will do complicated shit to evade the eyes of the law for their illicit activities.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 months ago
It’s almost like creating a platform where the intent is for users to post content without any kind of curation or manual review is itself a flawed idea. I understand how tempting the whole thing is, to set up a platform that allows you to be a passive middleman and take a cut of all activity on the platform.
Should be a law that if a platform is making money from something, it is also responsible for that content. Curation shouldn’t be enforced by law, but the legality of the content should be, whether it be illegal on its own like in this case or fraud. Ads included.
JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 2 months ago
You do realise how ironic posting that to Lemmy of all places is?
jeffw@lemmy.world 2 months ago
OF take 30% I think. What does an average scene make on OF? How does that compare to the pay rate for old school porn?
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 months ago
I think 30% is a fairly common number. That's also the exact share Google, Apple take if you program and sell Apps on their platform. And pribably also what you're facing when selling online courses or other things. I'd be surprised if a platform that also offers some infrastructure, takrs less than say 20 or 30%.
kent_eh@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
For comparison with non-porn, youtube takes more than 50% from adsense and 30% of supetchat/super thanks .
jeffw@lemmy.world 2 months ago
From my understanding, it’s higher than OF alternatives
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I think receiving 70% of the prices that you set is likely better than ?% of whatever PornHub or XHamster say they made from your video predominantly through ad revenue.
At the very least, it gives creators a great amount more control.
30% is also pretty standard. Google, Apple, Valve, etc all charge 30%. Shit, on twitch it’s 50% IIRC.
Deceptichum@quokk.au 2 months ago
Do most employers spend 70% of their profit on the staff wages?
Plopp@lemmy.world 2 months ago
How is 70% of what customers pay the same as 70% of their profits?
dezmd@lemmy.world 2 months ago
You mean gross revenue, not profit. 30% profit is after expenses including CoGS/wages and is good money if it scales.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
Creators on OF or any social media platform can’t be compared to employees. They are more like suppliers.