There is bad reporting going on around the news about OnlyFans. Yes it is due to the "payment processor" MasterCard but *that* reason for change was due to Exodus Cry's incessant activism against PornHub and their attempts to abolish all legal forms of pornography, sex work, Strip Clubs, etc under the guise of "think of the children".
@cj wtf is wrong with Christians, and why do the think they need to be missionaries about everything (they are wrong about)?
@cj let's not be too quick to let MasterCard off the hook here. they are the ones with the power in this situation. what they decide to do with that power is their choice, however convenient it is for them to have us believe otherwise. an elephant running away from a gnat is still an elephant.
the whole OF/Mastercard thing
so anyway, this is what Mastercard are asking for:
the devil is always in the details, of course, but at first glance it looks as though OnlyFans' objection to this is basically "this would cost us a shitload of money and mean we have to have more than 6 employees"
i'm wondering whether a "web of trust" model, based on a distributed co-operative of contributors each checking each other's content and consent, might be rather easier to implement? plus, it wouldn't be essentially a rent-based business model, but an actual collective
@cj iow, activism is only good when it lobbies for the values I support...
Also, claiming it is all about "think of the children" is a strawman. I never heard of Exodus Cry before your post, but a cursory look at their site and it is very clear they are up front against the sex *industry*, which is not necessarily the same as being puritanical or anti-sex.
@cj much like one can be against the war on drugs but against the weed "industry", one can be for decriminalization of prostitution but against the idea that it should be regulated, normalized and accepted as a "normal job".
@raphael You are talking about something completely different. They are both against the "decriminalization" by pushing for FOSTA/SESTA legislation *and* against the cultural idea.
Furthermore, "activism is only good when it lobbies for the values I support" is a tautological, hollow kind of observation, and a super weak criticism.
@raphael It's not a strawman. I had a fuller comment, but i really don't want to be discussing the abhorrent practice of child sex slavery.
@cj We don't need to discuss that, and it's kind of my point: there is a great number of people that don't even need to use "think of the children" as a justification to advocate against the sex industry and the normalization of pornography.
@raphael Look man, the past 2 decades of COPPA / FOSTA-SESTA / anti-encryption and all of these infringements to digital liberties has included a concentrated focus on sex trafficking, which has always been a euphamism for *child* sex trafficking, all of which is horrible. But in my 20+ years of these conversations w/ these activists, when it comes to the moral appeals to persuade the public / congress it almost always is most effective for them to say "think of the kids".
Removing cj since he doesn't want to get into that debate.
The normalization of a sex industry would allow it to be properly regulated and thus protect the ones offering services, those receiving services, and ensure that money transfers are properly taxed.
I don't see what could possibly be wrong with a safer, healthier industry that allows more freedom and safety for both sellers and buyers.
> I don't see what could possibly be wrong with a safer, healthier industry
This smells of the libertarian argument that ignores
(a) moral implications
of human actions in society at large.
Before anything, ask yourself if sex is something that should be "industrialized", especially considering how the internet takes this to planetary scale, with an endless number of people involved and so complex that is impossible to predict catastrophical outcomes.
> (a) moral implications
Sex workers currently are stigmatized in nearly every way, from not being able to access health care, to banking, discrimination, needing to hide their past from law enforcement, employers, etc.
Does that sound moral to you?
> (b) scale
In some countries, sex workers are unionized and heavily regulated. That looks like scale to me.
Prostitution is legal in other countries and the sky doesn't fall.
@emacsen the imoral thing is to try to legitimize "sex work" in the first place.
Still: hate the sin, but love the sinner. People should not be stigmatized.
The "moral thing" would be to figure out what leads so many people to "sex work" and fix the underlying cause. Lack of good job prospects? Failed education system? No good social safety net? Power structures leading to exploitation (no matter how "regulated" it is, unless prostitutes are 100% autonomous there is someone exploiting them)?
Basically "It's against my religion, so it should be illegal."
I'm not sure where you live, but in most of the western world, we've tried to separate out religion from law.
> The "moral thing" would be to figure out what leads so many people to "sex work" and fix the underlying cause
I think there are much bigger fish to fry in the area of bad work. Warehouse workers, Delivery, Fast Food, etc.
@emacsen I knew I shouldn't have written the "hate the sin" quip, because it would open an attack that my argument is based on religious grounds.
Let me say this: I'm well aware that my cultural background shapes my values somewhat, but to reduce it to "you think that because of your religion" is not only wrong (I'm not practicing), it is a bad form of "othering" me and kills any chance of rational debate.
> I think there are much bigger fish to fry in the area of bad work.
Come on, this is some poor form of Whataboutism. Yes, some jobs have poor work conditions. But doesn't it make more sense to organize society to work for better conditions to them instead of leveling down perfectly dignified jobs and equate them to prostitution?
> Come on, this is some poor form of Whataboutism
I don't agree all whataboutism is bad, but I also don't think there's anything inherently immoral about sex work any more than there is about any other kind of work.
There is abuse, but I see this largely as a function of the kinds of abuses we see in illegal trades and they get largely cleaned up once you legalize and regulate it.
I don't see any reason on *why* you think sex work is wrong, only that you dislike its existence.
@emacsen even after the porn industry got cleaned up and regulated, how many men and women developed a troubled relationship with their own sexuality? How many manage to separate their work from their personal lives? How many end up only in relationship with others "in the industry" because no one outside of the industry can deal with their partners having sex with different people every day? How many girls go through something like Mia Khalifa and regretted their choice?
> from not being able to access health care, to banking...
The solution to that problem is by establishing a better social structure and a way to support people that got into it, not to legitimize it.
> Prostitution is legal in other countries and the sky doesn't fall.
So is gambling. So is animal factory farming. You know that "it is legal" is not a valid argument when talking about the morality of actions.
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!