+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Other Adult Websites (/forumdisplay.php?fid=194)
+--- Forum: Personal Fan Sites (/forumdisplay.php?fid=395)
+--- Thread: OnlyFans - Rule Changes (/showthread.php?tid=84425)
RE: OnlyFans - Rule Changes - lovebabes56 - 24-08-2021 11:54
If it had been me runnnig OF I would argue the case fairly but would admit defeat and complied but I think OF must have known it was coming for a while but itb does seem it will be one messy drawn out drama lol
Just a thought - Did BS shut down BS fans at all?
RE: OnlyFans - Rule Changes - Rammyrascal - 24-08-2021 14:43
(24-08-2021 07:21 )The Silent Majority Wrote: She's hardly impartial though, given that she's a friend of the founder and apparently runs a management company representing 250 of the girls on OF.
Yep, Dannii isn't exactly neutral on this 100% given as you say she's friends with the found of OF and represents 250 women on OF
Could even say she's a mouthpiece for OF
RE: OnlyFans - Rule Changes - ryuken - 24-08-2021 14:51
BS shutdown BSFans in under a year after it's launch.
Whether it was due to lack of punters not signing up for it, or babes not joining due to them already having an OF is a mystery.
But OF likely had an effect on BSFans, because loads of popular babes on BS don't even do or rarely do VIP members videos for them anymore.
They'd probably rather do it for their OF pages instead. It looks like only new or less popular babes do VIP member videos for BS now.
RE: OnlyFans - Rule Changes - ryuken - 24-08-2021 14:55
Megan Barton-Hanson: ‘OnlyFans explicit content ban makes me want to start an app to stand up for sex workers’
https://inews.co.uk/news/technology/megan-barton-hanson-onlyfans-ban-explicit-content-start-app-sex-workers-1162949
RE: OnlyFans - Rule Changes - Spike1876 - 24-08-2021 15:02
Jamie Jones is jumping ship to Fansly as well
RE: OnlyFans - Rule Changes - marlowe - 24-08-2021 15:29
OnlyFans now say that the new Mastercard rules were irrelevant to their decision to ban sexually explicit content: "we’re already fully compliant with the new Mastercard rules, so that had no bearing on the decision".
The real reason was banks which would cite 'reputational risk' and refuse to deal with OnlyFans. They specifically name Bank of New York Mellon as rejecting all OnlyFans transactions "making it difficult to pay our creators".
RE: OnlyFans - Rule Changes - tony confederate - 24-08-2021 16:32
(24-08-2021 11:44 )ShandyHand Wrote: What would you have done if you were them?
In view of the above post regarding banks I might have felt I had no choice. Depending upon how easy it was to find another bank to work with. But if I did have a choice I would need to know how many OnlyFans creators were non-porn anyway, celebs etc, how many were porn but not sexually explicit porn, so therefore not affected by the proposed change, and how many were borderline cases that could adapt to the proposed change without too much difficulty, and how many were simply hardcore creators and would have to leave. Only if I had all that information would I be in a position to decide what to do. It would really be all about numbers.
RE: OnlyFans - Rule Changes - lovebabes56 - 24-08-2021 18:29
Marlowe, How are British banks handling it?
RE: OnlyFans - Rule Changes - marlowe - 24-08-2021 18:50
(24-08-2021 18:29 )lovebabes56 Wrote: How are British banks handling it?
OnlyFans used to bank with Metro Bank which is British, but they say Metro Bank closed the account at short notice.
RE: OnlyFans - Rule Changes - ShandyHand - 24-08-2021 21:22
(24-08-2021 16:32 )tony confederate Wrote: In view of the above post regarding banks I might have felt I had no choice. Depending upon how easy it was to find another bank to work with. But if I did have a choice I would need to know how many OnlyFans creators were non-porn anyway, celebs etc, how many were porn but not sexually explicit porn, so therefore not affected by the proposed change, and how many were borderline cases that could adapt to the proposed change without too much difficulty, and how many were simply hardcore creators and would have to leave. Only if I had all that information would I be in a position to decide what to do. It would really be all about numbers.
I'm sure if the data is collatable OF has it to hand. But questions like how many creators would be likely to change their m.o. on the new OF rather than moving platform... well exactly would you judge such a thing? Surveys? Unlikely (and surely someone would've reported such a thing if OF had questioned such a thing)... I suspect OF have a guesstimate on what amount of creators they are willing to lose shortterm is all.
Anyway, to today's more important stuff: Let's look to the horse's mouth now our real life info has indeed pivoted quite a bit. All of that I'm refering to from here on is from a new FT piece (there's a copy here) with OF founder and chief exec Tim Stokely from earlier that marlowe has clearly read. (Btw the article continues the most recent theme from OF with several bits of damage control does it not? Notice how along with moving the spotlight off Mastercard - changing the narrative - it also, at last, begins to actively point fingers at the media and, by extension, the anti-Sex Work bridgade - i.e. new framing. This is exactly the stance I advocated for when news first hit. More combative, more challenging of the undemocratic manouevers that got us here; plus more adovacy for the better treatment of SW. This is OF pointedly saying we didn't want to change and look what's happening.)
(24-08-2021 10:54 )tony confederate Wrote:(21-08-2021 18:34 )ShandyHand Wrote: Mastercard have created a situation in which OF felt compelled to REMOVE whole swathes of legal material.
Compelled seems a rather inappropriate word here. Other platforms are not removing their sexually explicit material, so OnlyFans could have kept it on their platform too.
The article plainly states OF were "forced" into their actions. Stokley is directly quoted as saying they felt they had "no choice" but to do what they did. I'd say that is complete vindication for my use of "compelled" wouldn't you?
Yes at least 3 banks are now in the frame instead of just MC but it's essentially the same abuse of power resulting in the stymieing people's legit business/livilihoods. And these banks being risk averse here is a judgement based on false narratives put around about sex work - put around by parties with murky agendas. Agendas that need to be spotlighted for what they really are.