From c/MGTOW, fresh OnlyFans girl tears for all the "misogynists" to enjoy. - Kotaku In Action 2

From c/MGTOW, fresh OnlyFans girl tears for all the "misogynists" to enjoy. (media.communities.win)

posted 3 years ago by TheImpossible1 3 years ago by TheImpossible1 +76 / -5

46 comments download

46 comments share download save hide report block hide replies

You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.

Comments (46)

sorted by:

▲ 33 ▼

– WhitePhoenix 33 points 3 years ago +33 / -0

Here's the big problem for me.

On one hand, the reason why these thots got destroyed was because of their own short sightedness and stupidity. Nothing new - leftist feminists never think farther than 1 day into the future.

On the other hand, there's a bigger problem to be addressed.

Part of the reason why Alex Jones and a lot of so-called fringe conservatives got deplatformed was because of these very banks. If banks and payment processors are forcing OF to change their model then that pretty much is the Next Step in the ahem... BANKERS... overtaking us is it not?

I know a lot of people are celebrating this but it kinda proves the point that the ...bankers/payment processors... are becoming so much of a problem it's even starting to finally affect the left.

So what's next to do?

I'm putting ellipses to emphasize a common /pol/ narrative by the way lol.

permalink save report block reply

▲ 9 ▼

– TheImpossible1 [S] 9 points 3 years ago +11 / -2

I know a lot of people are celebrating this but it kinda proves the point that the ...bankers/payment processors... are becoming so much of a problem it's even starting to finally affect the left.

Not really. OnlyFans was refusing to comply with basic rules around CP and the banks knew a lot of people would support their demise so they pulled the plug.

That's if this isn't just because they're chasing that sweet IPO cash, which is simply because adult organizations aren't accepted by mainstream investment banking.

Either way, I don't see any reason to worry. If anything, this is a sign that feminism doesn't have as tight of a grip on financial services as I thought.

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 4 ▼

– DNA1 4 points 3 years ago +4 / -0

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.

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 1 ▼

– DNA1 1 point 3 years ago +1 / -0

No response, huh. I came across this just now on KiA - https://archive.fo/d8RC2

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.

permalink parent save report block reply