Why did OnlyFans ban sexually explicit content? It says it's the credit card companies. Thursday's decision by the creator platform OnlyFans to soon stop hosting a wide swath of sexually explicit content is sending shockwaves through the internet.
OnlyFans, a website with million users and more than 2 million content creators, has become synonymous with pornography.
For many, performing on the app is a lifeline: Some who lost their jobs during the pandemic turned to sharing explicit videos of themselves on OnlyFans to help pay the bills. Many of these sex workers are now expressing outrage at what they view as OnlyFans's betrayal of a community that enabled the platform's massive success.
Not all of OnlyFans' explicit content is going away; simple nudity will still be allowed, the company said, as long as it complies with the platform's other policies. Only "content containing sexually-explicit conduct" — presumably meaning sex acts on camera — will be banned, it said in a statement. Venture capital firms are often wary of investing in platforms that host adult content.
According to internal documents obtained by AxiosOnlyFans' popularity and revenue both exploded during the pandemic, yet it has struggled to secure outside investment. OnlyFans' decision is also a result of a much wider and concerted crackdown in recent years across explicit parts of the internet, one driven largely by a group of powerful and increasingly assertive companies: The payment processors who, behind the scenes, handle every swipe of your credit card whether you're paying for gas, buying groceries or, yes, tipping a performer on OnlyFans.
In its announcement this week, OnlyFans said its decision was driven with a view toward building a sustainable platform for the long term.
Seth Eisen, a spokesman for Mastercard, told CNN Business it was not involved in OnlyFans' decision to restrict the content it would allow on the platform. Other payment processors didn't immediately respond to a request for comment for this story. OnlyFans' decision to attribute its policy change to payment companies reflects how the financial sector has increasingly leaned against sites that share adult content. But the issue, they say, is not one of mere prudishness, but legal exposure.
Credit card companies are growing increasingly conscious of their own potential legal exposure, McNamara added, if they are accused of facilitating sex trafficking or the spread of child sexual abuse material. Last December, Discover, Mastercard and Visa all announced that they would suspend payments to Pornhub, one of the web's largest porn sites, following allegations that the site had hosted child sexual abuse material. In response, Pornhub scrubbed its site of all videos that weren't produced by verified partners and implemented a verification program that all users would need to undergo if they wanted to post adult content.
Though Visa later agreed to restore service to some adult sites owned by Pornhub's parent, MindGeek, Pornhub itself remains cut off from credit card processors; the platform still only accepts payment by direct bank transfer and cryptocurrency. Then, in April, Mastercard rolled out a series of new requirements governing adult-content transactions. The move, Mastercard said, was aimed at combating illegal adult material.
Platforms would be required to verify the age and identity of those who were posting and who were depicted in online porn, Mastercard said, and would have to have a process to review adult content before it is posted.
Adult sites would have to offer a complaint process that can "address" illegal or non-consensual content within seven days, and offer ways for people depicted in adult content to request takedowns of that content. The new rules revealed the power of the payments industry to shape how millions of people experience the internet.
And Mastercard isn't the only one.
The financial industry's muscle-flexing has drawn criticism from digital rights advocates who argue it's throwing its weight around. The payment industry's role in shaping the internet stretches back years.
Over the following years, momentum against Back continued to build; the Justice Department seized its website inand its creators were indicted days later. Proponents of the law said it would help curb sexual abuse. But in recent years, the narrative surrounding SESTA-FOSTA has shifted as platforms like Craigslist removed all personal classifieds rather than risk running afoul of the law and as sex workers themselves have increasingly argued the law made their profession less safe by driving it further underground — even as a federal report found this year that SESTA-FOSTA has in fact rarely been used in actual prosecution.
Now, sex workers are raising their voices again, this time to defend their ability to represent themselves on digital platforms like OnlyFans. The fact that OnlyFans chose to ban pornography rather than establish a verification system, as Pornhub did, suggests the platform is less safe for creators than it seems, McNamara said.
But whether an adult site responds more like Pornhub than OnlyFans, the creation of what's essentially a new content policy regime enforced by private payment networks says far more about the financial industry's influence than of the websites subject to its enforcement, according to legal experts. Payment processors are well within their rights to determine what transactions they will and won't support on their networks. In that respect, they are not that different from platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, who are massively powerful in their own right, said Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Virginia studying online content moderation and who also helps lead the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, a group that advocates against nonconsensual porn.
Just like social media companies, payment processors are protected by Section of the Communications Act ofCitron said. Citron wants to see changes made to Section that could expose platforms to more liability under certain circumstances.
Perhaps, she said, those changes might even allow sex workers who feel their businesses have been harmed by payment processors to sue them for tortious interference. It's from their own homes, they're making content on their own terms," Citron said. But should we be worried about the kind of power they have? All rights reserved. It says it's the credit card companies Posted: Aug 20, PM.
Related Content Why did OnlyFans ban sexually explicit content? Scroll for more content Minnesota Coronavirus Cases.
Iowa Coronavirus Cases. Eye in the sky.
Most Popular Stories. Austin woman arrested in Cerro Gordo Co. States banning mask mandates, including Iowa, could face civil rights probes.
Minnesota authorities trying to ID man who stole money from cards during funeral service. Ames police find woman dead in apartment; man arrested. Iowa man charged in Capitol riot may be returned to jail. RPD: Officer near the area when gunshots were fired late Thursday.
Mike Richards out as 'Jeopardy! Mason City man arrested for trafficking weapons.
Latest Video. RPS revisiting role of school resource officers. RPS revisits school resource officers.
Blues Traveler takes the stage in Rochester after tour bus crash. Senator Ernst in North Iowa. Community reacts to rescinded masking order in Rochester. Community Reacts to Mask Ruling. Beam ing held at new RPS middle school site. Drive sober campaign begins in MN.