OnlyFans was refusing to comply with basic rules around CP
Sources? This is the type of justification often used by authoritarians because, obviously, almost nobody would support that content in the 1st place given how abhorrent it is, in addition to its illegality. However, they willfully make such claims knowing that they are complete fabrications.
I can envision there being CP on the platform at times given how it requires reporting and moderation; any such medium (file/image/video hosts, etc.) is subject to this type of attack vector. But I didn't find anything supporting your assertion of them refusing their moderation responsibilities at a cursory search.
Internal documents, leaked to BBC News, reveal that OnlyFans allows moderators to give multiple warnings to accounts that post illegal content on its online platform before deciding to close them.
In May, BBC News revealed the site was failing to prevent under-18s from selling and appearing in explicit videos, despite it being illegal for children to do so. At the time, OnlyFans said attempts to use the site fraudulently were "rare".
There's more listed than just minors, but it's a clear issue with the moderation system:
We obtained several differently-dated versions of the same 2021 document. All, except the oldest, state there should be at least five examples of "illegal" content on an account for it to be "escalated" immediately to management. Later versions from this summer include an apparently contradictory statement requiring immediate management referral for some examples of illegal content.
The document also gives moderators specific instructions for dealing with accounts - depending on how popular each one is. It says accounts with higher numbers of subscribers can be given additional warnings when rules are broken.
However, staff are told to moderate accounts with low user numbers "as we would and [restrict] when necessary". With middle range accounts, they are told to warn, "but only restrict after the 3rd warning". If one of the site's most successful - and lucrative - creators breaks the rules, the account is dealt with by a different team.
Sources? This is the type of justification often used by authoritarians because, obviously, almost nobody would support that content in the 1st place given how abhorrent it is, in addition to its illegality. However, they willfully make such claims knowing that they are complete fabrications.
I can envision there being CP on the platform at times given how it requires reporting and moderation; any such medium (file/image/video hosts, etc.) is subject to this type of attack vector. But I didn't find anything supporting your assertion of them refusing their moderation responsibilities at a cursory search.
No response, huh. I came across this just now on KiA - https://archive.fo/d8RC2
There's more listed than just minors, but it's a clear issue with the moderation system: