I’m convinced this platform is used for money laundering, by someone; not accusing Radvinsky, but if you wanted to create an opaque money transmission system, you’d design it close to what OF is.
I have zero love for OF, but shouldn't your reasoning also apply to Patreon, Gofundme, and so on? They all let you collect small fees for completely unverifiable services.
Bought a service (2018) and changed the model to one where it was collecting compromising adult-oriented content from random people. That content can be used to try to shame them into avoiding the limelight later in life. I guess with Epstein out of the way (2019) they needed something else for blackmail material.
Made billions from OnlyFans and then made a large donation to AIPAC. Wouldn't admit it.
The Reuters story linked is substantially the same as this one but omits the AIPAC link. I wonder why.
Everything that touches on the adult industry is controversial, sometimes rightfully so, but it also responds to a need, like it or not. Regulation can make it more or less open, but it always here.
Out of everything in the adult industry, to me, OnlyFans is one of the most sane. That is encouraging independent performers to get payed directly by their fans, taking only a reasonable commission. It doesn't mean there is no exploitation, but at least, it offers a way for those who want to do this kind of work to do it on their own terms.
> Out of everything in the adult industry, to me, OnlyFans is one of the most sane. That is encouraging independent performers to get payed directly by their fans, taking only a reasonable commission.
I kinda agree, but the prevalence of fake chatting soured me on the company as a bastion of sane sex work. Without it, it seems legit: fans pay for content, they get content. But add the layer of fans pay for chatting with the models, and get something else.
The flip side is that if you make a thing smooth, profitable, and safe-feeling, you get more of it, as any economist can tell you. Also, as any sociologist can tell you, when you make a fringe thing feel normal among young people, you get a LOT more of it.
So your defense of OF only real works if you think that an explosion of commercialized sex has no negative effect on our culture, or if you (stupidly) believe that the rate of sex work is an immutable constant, impervious to laws, technology, or social contagion.
I agree with your description of what goes on here with this and other things as well. It's depressing that it seems like for almost any activity the two choices are illegal and celebrated. It seems like if you venture an opinion that X is wrong not adding and I think it should be a crime marks you as something akin to a hypocrite.
Nominally we live in a tolerant society but sometimes I wonder if anyone knows what the word means.
Personal responsibility has to enter the picture somewhere. If a family is ripped apart because a member is using OnlyFans then that's that family member bears responsibility. OnlyFans didn't invent pornography. And on the model side, it allows cutting out a whole industry of truly skeezy, immoral middlemen distributors.
I do dislike the effect OnlyFans has had on society but I think it's a symptom, not a cause.
The family of the OF user is not the only family affected by this general decay. Indeed, when you normalize sex work, some families never even form. There's such a thing as a social fabric.
Libertarianism is willful ignorance, and taken this far, it's a brain disease.
> cutting out a whole industry of truly skeezy, immoral middlemen distributors
This argument only makes sense if you blindly model the amount of degrading dreck as a constant, unaffected by technology and opportunities. Again, brain disease.
Oh, and before OF, Radvinsky was facilitating child porn and bestiality. Were the children and animals being empowered, too? Should they have taken responsibility?
> Oh, and before OF, Radvinsky was facilitating child porn and bestiality.
I have no idea if that's true but it's irrelevant, those are illegal. Porn is not illegal. You may wish to make porn illegal but so far society has not agreed with you on that.
Do you believe that there is anything that is legal yet immoral? If an industry is legal, is it automatically good to dedicate your life to growing and spreading it to all corners of society, so long as it makes you money? Do you think this guy left the world a better place?
Less polemically...
> I do dislike the effect OnlyFans has had on society but I think it's a symptom, not a cause.
What do you think is the underlying cause or causes?
You nailed it! The only way I could possible believe in any constraints on the free market is that I am Monty Python's cartoon of a Catholic. Well done.
There is no such thing as a healthy or unhealthy society. Only money. This guy made a lot of it. What a hero. All of us here on the orange site should aspire to his level of genius. Ha ha ha funny songs, silly walks.
He provided a way for many people to earn a living from the comfort of their homes and saved them from people that can exploit sexual workers (economically and worse).
If you find sexual work a despicable thing it's your right, but the people that are doing it through Onlyfans have it better than in other ways.
Does OnlyFans have an extensive anti-trafficking program to prevent one typical method of exploitation? If not, it's just proving a platform for the traffickers to make money from the comfort of a safe jurisdiction.
I’m convinced this platform is used for money laundering, by someone; not accusing Radvinsky, but if you wanted to create an opaque money transmission system, you’d design it close to what OF is.
If you want to launder money you don’t usually do it with credit cards.
I have zero love for OF, but shouldn't your reasoning also apply to Patreon, Gofundme, and so on? They all let you collect small fees for completely unverifiable services.
I remember hearing about money laundering via Steam item trading years ago. There seem to be some recent articles as well, but this is what I remember: https://web.archive.org/web/20140523053405/https://www.polyg...
paypal, heck every retail gift card too.
Retail gift cards are very much known for use in money laundering, so...
Somber reminder of our mortality. Rest in peace Leonid.
Bought a service (2018) and changed the model to one where it was collecting compromising adult-oriented content from random people. That content can be used to try to shame them into avoiding the limelight later in life. I guess with Epstein out of the way (2019) they needed something else for blackmail material.
Made billions from OnlyFans and then made a large donation to AIPAC. Wouldn't admit it.
The Reuters story linked is substantially the same as this one but omits the AIPAC link. I wonder why.
[0] https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/leonid-rad...
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47489846
What a curse, to die with not one but two forms of cancer.
I hate the idea of a service like that, but I feel for his family. Its terrible to go out like that.
Everything that touches on the adult industry is controversial, sometimes rightfully so, but it also responds to a need, like it or not. Regulation can make it more or less open, but it always here.
Out of everything in the adult industry, to me, OnlyFans is one of the most sane. That is encouraging independent performers to get payed directly by their fans, taking only a reasonable commission. It doesn't mean there is no exploitation, but at least, it offers a way for those who want to do this kind of work to do it on their own terms.
> Out of everything in the adult industry, to me, OnlyFans is one of the most sane. That is encouraging independent performers to get payed directly by their fans, taking only a reasonable commission.
I kinda agree, but the prevalence of fake chatting soured me on the company as a bastion of sane sex work. Without it, it seems legit: fans pay for content, they get content. But add the layer of fans pay for chatting with the models, and get something else.
The flip side is that if you make a thing smooth, profitable, and safe-feeling, you get more of it, as any economist can tell you. Also, as any sociologist can tell you, when you make a fringe thing feel normal among young people, you get a LOT more of it.
So your defense of OF only real works if you think that an explosion of commercialized sex has no negative effect on our culture, or if you (stupidly) believe that the rate of sex work is an immutable constant, impervious to laws, technology, or social contagion.
I agree with your description of what goes on here with this and other things as well. It's depressing that it seems like for almost any activity the two choices are illegal and celebrated. It seems like if you venture an opinion that X is wrong not adding and I think it should be a crime marks you as something akin to a hypocrite.
Nominally we live in a tolerant society but sometimes I wonder if anyone knows what the word means.
That's big of you, given that he showed no concern for anybody else's family. What's terrible is to spend your life ripping apart society.
Personal responsibility has to enter the picture somewhere. If a family is ripped apart because a member is using OnlyFans then that's that family member bears responsibility. OnlyFans didn't invent pornography. And on the model side, it allows cutting out a whole industry of truly skeezy, immoral middlemen distributors.
I do dislike the effect OnlyFans has had on society but I think it's a symptom, not a cause.
Disagree. Personal responsibility should never be publicly discussed. It’s personal.
The family of the OF user is not the only family affected by this general decay. Indeed, when you normalize sex work, some families never even form. There's such a thing as a social fabric.
Libertarianism is willful ignorance, and taken this far, it's a brain disease.
> cutting out a whole industry of truly skeezy, immoral middlemen distributors
This argument only makes sense if you blindly model the amount of degrading dreck as a constant, unaffected by technology and opportunities. Again, brain disease.
Oh, and before OF, Radvinsky was facilitating child porn and bestiality. Were the children and animals being empowered, too? Should they have taken responsibility?
> Oh, and before OF, Radvinsky was facilitating child porn and bestiality.
I have no idea if that's true but it's irrelevant, those are illegal. Porn is not illegal. You may wish to make porn illegal but so far society has not agreed with you on that.
> Porn is not illegal.
Do you believe that there is anything that is legal yet immoral? If an industry is legal, is it automatically good to dedicate your life to growing and spreading it to all corners of society, so long as it makes you money? Do you think this guy left the world a better place?
Less polemically...
> I do dislike the effect OnlyFans has had on society but I think it's a symptom, not a cause.
What do you think is the underlying cause or causes?
Is this the "every sperm is sacred" argument?
You nailed it! The only way I could possible believe in any constraints on the free market is that I am Monty Python's cartoon of a Catholic. Well done.
There is no such thing as a healthy or unhealthy society. Only money. This guy made a lot of it. What a hero. All of us here on the orange site should aspire to his level of genius. Ha ha ha funny songs, silly walks.
How was he ripping families apart?
Lol.
https://x.com/MillennialWoes/status/1893134391322308918
He provided a way for many people to earn a living from the comfort of their homes and saved them from people that can exploit sexual workers (economically and worse).
If you find sexual work a despicable thing it's your right, but the people that are doing it through Onlyfans have it better than in other ways.
Does OnlyFans have an extensive anti-trafficking program to prevent one typical method of exploitation? If not, it's just proving a platform for the traffickers to make money from the comfort of a safe jurisdiction.
[dead]
[dead]