of the speech department
This week, our two insightful side winners come in response to our post on OnlyFans and his announcement that he will no longer host sexually explicit content. First, it’s James Burkhardt with some thoughts:
A huge angle that I think is worth exploring
OF seeks to limit sexually explicit content to gain INVESTORS.
Why is this significant? OF’s incredible income, which attracts investors, is built on this content. Just as Tumblr’s value plummeted from Verizon’s acquisition to Verizon’s sale of OF, from $ 1 billion to $ 20 million. Almost two complete orders of magnitude. The main loss appears to come from the exodus of Tumblr users following a policy of no sexual content that has also killed large mutually supportive trans and neurodivergent communities, including my discussion of the unique challenges facing relationships. amorous and sexual are confronted in these communities. One of the main reasons some communities left is the lack of clarity of what was allowed (the text was meant to be correct, so it was not).
This is the problem of the organized public. OF has a giant audience looking for sexually explicit material. When it cuts that audience, like a Minecraft or Fortnite YouTuber switching to a new game, that audience and the revenue disappear.
Any investor looking to invest in OF at a valuation based on the growth of the past 2 years is a fool, and the attempt to cash in on the owner at the expense of those who built the platform’s value deserves to exhaust all. ‘effort.
Second, it is Samuel Abram who quotes and seeks the opinion of another commentator:
Considering what Stephen T. Stone said …
The difference between “Moderation” and “Censorship” is that:
– “Moderation” is “You can’t do that here.” While,
– “Censorship” is “You can’t do this anywhere.”
Considering that it is likely that FOSTA and SESTA create such a deterrent effect, I think what OnlyFans is doing is more akin to “censorship”. What does Stephen T. Stone say?
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we start with James Burkhardt other Commentary on the OnlyFans news, this time responding to a commentator drawing a parallel with the closure of gambling sites and alleging that the real problem is that artists don’t pay taxes:
You are wrong. Betting websites were shut down in 2011 for violating state-level gambling as well as money laundering and wire fraud by manipulating payment transaction data to appear as otherwise thing as gambling earnings. While this was not stated in the case, they likely did not report gambling earnings to the IRS as required by law.
A company like OF, looking for investors, absolutely reports its income to the IRS and, like Patreon, would report to the government the 1099-NEC income earned on its platform. I know, for a fact, that only fans need tax information to pay over $ 600 in a calendar year to comply with reporting requirements. You don’t report that thousands of content creators are making over $ 50,000 for investors if you don’t report that income.
It was a huge talking point for the MRA that cam girls didn’t pay taxes a few years ago. It wasn’t based on anything solid. The basis was that at the same time, these workers were hit by the IRS. But the idea that these were people trying to hide their income is generally trivial. It was not a widespread problem and those affected were affected because the sites (chaturbate, MFC) were reporting their income to the IRS and the real problem was that many of these young girls were unaware of the special tax situation an independent contractor finds himself in (i.e. you have to pay taxes quarterly, not just at the end of the year). People “don’t pay taxes” were, and reporting requirements caught those who did. That’s why he didn’t make headlines that MFC didn’t report income and wasn’t charged.
The content is legal. It is not about “not paying taxes”. It’s about Onlyfans trying to cash in on their founder and can’t find anyone other than a porn mogul who wants to invest in a site known for porn thanks to our entire law enforcement history and everything related to sex online.
Then it’s Stephen T. Stone responding piece by piece to another comment on our article on how you can’t regulate Facebook like it’s the whole internet:
“Facebook is not all Internet, but it has a virtual monopoly in its industry.”
Twitter, the Fediverse, Discord, and a host of other social media / communications services say otherwise. Popularity alone is no monopoly.
“Rather than trying to create a set of rules that apply to everything, it’s probably more useful to target the near monopoly itself.”
And that would still require regulations that don’t hamper the entire internet with Facebook.
“Maybe dismantling the company or declaring it a common carrier would be a better approach.”
Rupture, perhaps, but Facebook is not a common carrier. Trying to declare it a single because you hate it is a new low for you.
“Getting censored shows that your opinion is the strongest.”
I’m glad to know that you support pro-queer and anti-racist ideologies, but your support for pro-terrorism and pro-pedophilia ideologies is… unfortunate.
On the fun side, our first place winner is an anonymous response to our post on the GOP’s obsession with social media, which we call rallying around something small:
But enough about their dear boss hands…
Second, it’s another anonymous comment, this time responding to a commentator’s repeated claim that “being censored proves your opinion is the strongest”:
OK, so if I say “Koby is a jerk” and people flag me down to have the comment hidden, that means I have the strongest opinion, right?
(The comment was indeed flagged and hidden.)
For editor’s choice on the fun side, our first place winner is David with an answer to the question of why Trump’s friends failed to present their evidence of voter fraud in the Dominion lawsuit:
They protect their sources.
To be laughed at out of court.
Finally, it’s Stephen T. Stone with another thought on the Dominion trial:
Slim. I’m on the side of a corporate giant in this fight, and all I needed to make it happen was to watch a bunch of right-wing scammers lie about electoral integrity. How dare those assholes put me on the Dominion side.
That’s it for this week, folks!
Thanks for reading this Techdirt post. With so much competing for attention these days, we really appreciate your giving us your time. We work hard every day to bring quality content to our community.
Techdirt is one of the few media that is still truly independent. We don’t have a giant company behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, at a time when advertisers are less and less interested in sponsoring small independent sites – especially a site like ours that does not want to put his finger on his reports. and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to pay walls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying / intrusive advertising, we’ve always kept Techdirt open and accessible to everyone. But to continue this way, we need your support. We offer our readers a variety of ways to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool products – and every little bit counts. Thank you.
– The Techdirt team