OnlyFans - Rule Changes

(21-08-2021 09:25 )ShandyHand Wrote:  And this action from Mastercard has brought about massive over-regulation of legal porn. Either you are for or against the specific action they have taken (despite their obvious fore knowledge of its likely impacts).

Everyone can see and hold values of various standards but the question is practical applications of these values in a proportionate manner that upholds the values of a free and democratic civilised society. The arrogance of the likes of Mastercard when they reach such decisions is outstanding. They are acting as government and judiciary here.

Scoring points about which ideology is to blame for the latest liberty grab is piffle in contrast. The religious right have learnt from the 'woke'. Unfortunately we will all suffer from reaping what they sowed. This is only the start. Next chapter: The Online Harms Bill.

Do we know Mastercard have done this on a whim? Or are we just assuming it.
I'd be surprised if OF haven't been warned already and given the chance to clean up their act before it came to this.

If OF are taking their 20% from accounts run by minors then they're profiting from illegal activity. I'm no expert in law, but I'd think Mastercard would find themselves in legal jeopardy if they were found to be facilitating this. The banks have already been hammered over money laundering and other activities surrounding the crash, and rightly so. But it's ok for them to turn a blind eye to this?

And the argument that it's only a few creators, and they should go after the real criminals is bullshit. It's not an 'either or' scenario.
I'd be interested to know what you and Rake think is the acceptable threshold, in numbers, before action is taken?

And just so you know where I'm coming from here, I had someone in my wider family who was vulnerable and sexually exploited. It ultimately led to a complete mental breakdown and being sectioned. But hey, one person in 65million odd, who cares...

There is no threshold for action. No one has suggested that or a blind eye. One is obviously enough if illegal. But it's a question of the right actions.

What is the right action, from the Bank's point of view.

They're hardly going to go in and start vetting accounts for themselves, are they.

CEOP police online exploitation as I pointed out earlier.

Of course the platforms should monitor and shutdown and report creators and content which illegal, to CEOP or their equivalent in the relevant jurisdiction.

The whole problem with attacking it via the payment processing companies is that
the sensitivity and specificity ratios of this action are likely to be hopelessly out of kilter and will destroy the livelihoods of millions of perfectly legal creators and a pleasure for millions of punters.

It’s like stopping petrol supplies to anyone who owns a car that can go over 80 mph In order to stop speeding and car fatalities.

(21-08-2021 13:50 )Rake Wrote:  will destroy the livelihoods of millions of perfectly legal creators

Obviously that isn't true. Most platforms don't seem bothered by the new rules and creators who are leaving OnlyFans seem to be announcing already which platform they are switching to.

(21-08-2021 13:50 )Rake Wrote:  The whole problem with attacking it via the payment processing companies is that
the sensitivity and specificity ratios of this action are likely to be hopelessly out of kilter and will destroy the livelihoods of millions of perfectly legal creators and a pleasure for millions of punters.

You're delusional if you think the payment processors are on some kind of moral crusade here. They're only concern is making money and avoiding fines.

This will fall in the latter category.

(21-08-2021 13:50 )Rake Wrote:  It’s like stopping petrol supplies to anyone who owns a car that can go over 80 mph In order to stop speeding and car fatalities.

It isn't actually. That's a false analogy.

Mastercard aren't "stopping petrol supplies" as you claim. They have just changed the terms and conditions on which they supply petrol.

(21-08-2021 14:47 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  

(21-08-2021 13:50 )Rake Wrote:  The whole problem with attacking it via the payment processing companies is that
the sensitivity and specificity ratios of this action are likely to be hopelessly out of kilter and will destroy the livelihoods of millions of perfectly legal creators and a pleasure for millions of punters.

You're delusional if you think the payment processors are on some kind of moral crusade here. They're only concern is making money and avoiding fines.

This will fall in the latter category.

I didn’t mention moral crusades. Projection is a powerful thing, it’s you thats been adopting a sanctimonious moral high ground position, even to the extent of citing a family case of abuse and welcoming the Mastercard policy because even 1 in 65 million is too many…

(21-08-2021 15:13 )marlowe Wrote:  

(21-08-2021 13:50 )Rake Wrote:  It’s like stopping petrol supplies to anyone who owns a car that can go over 80 mph In order to stop speeding and car fatalities.

It isn't actually. That's a false analogy.

Mastercard aren't "stopping petrol supplies" as you claim. They have just changed the terms and conditions on which they supply petrol.

Errr amounts to the same thing if you can’t buy petrol…

(21-08-2021 14:47 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  You're delusional if you think the payment processors are on some kind of moral crusade here.

Indeed. If they were on a moral crusade they would surely stop acting as a payment partner for porn sites, rather than continuing to be a major payment partner for porn sites whilst insisting on proper moderation of content.

Many adult sites are not affected by the rule changes at all and Mastercard will continue to provide them with payment services without any issues. In other words Mastercard continues to be part and parcel of the porn industry.