________________________________________________________________________________
Okay wow this guy has _mastered_ the funnel!
He owns the website with leaked porn accounts passwords to _his own_ porn websites!
I’m not even mad, that’s amazing.
I would argue that alot fewer people would be subscribing to onlyfans feeds if they didn’t have familiarity with premium accounts already. Although the personal touch is pretty unique.
Yeah i think quite possibly it's a fake hacked passwords site where he basically sells access to his own sites for even cheaper, under the pretense of them being hacked.
If true, that's a truly an example of price discrimination for the ages. I honestly have a hard time imagining anything sleazier.
Sleezier than airlines doing it based on cookies? Sleezier than every SaaS product ever giving a greater "one-time offer just for you" when you click "I'm not interested" or if you try to cancel the service?
I think what this guy did is clever and not sleezy at all. It is hilarious and amazingly self-aware, monetizing customers that are willing to jump through hoops to access his service.
Clever and sleazy on a Venn diagram may be almost a circle on some occasions.
The only real difference is when a big company does it we're supposed to think it's 'clever' but when an individual does it we're told it's 'sleazy'.
Just like when I buy something down the street and mark up the price 100% before selling it to you. I'm a bad guy for doing what every large retailer does every single day of the year.
but do you, a different person than who I responded to, feel that way here?
what is sleezy about converting pirates into customers? is it the pornography relation?
what if it was found that Netflix itself was the one selling their accounts for sharing on some websites? Sleezy is not the word I would use.
I don’t have any problem with the pornography aspect. I consume the product, I have many friends who make it (and do other sex work), I publicly advocate for decriminalization of prostitution.
The thing that’s sleazy about it is that none of the piracy sites are pirating one brand. So if the owner of one brand is operating such a site, he is certainly peddling pirated work from competitors, which is probably diverting revenue to other sex workers and even the ones who perform on his payroll.
It’s pretty likely he’s doing other shady shit besides.
For what it’s worth, this is an opportunity for any disgusting person because the law and the stigma around sex work make protecting workers difficult. A certain brothel owner in Nevada who died recently was a known creep but nearly ran a successful bid for congress because few people care about his victims.
These are fantastic points I hadn't thought of. Thank you for this perspective.
I've long wondered what would happen if "self produced" pornography saw its day in court.
Afaik the exception pornography initially had which made it exist outside of sex work rules hinged on where the money came from. If it was from someone engaging in the act, then it's prostitution. If it's someone else, then it's acting.
But arguably, the payment here is more direct so I honestly think it wouldn't be obvious. The customers are paying for the purpose of potentially live sex work merely with a barrier of technology between them.
I'd imagine it's the same as the peep shows where someone pays to enter a booth to watch a promised tantalizing performance with a transparent barrier between the participants, but I really don't know.
The second interesting thing is about teenagers. The original argument again, relied on two models: one where the person is getting paid by a participant, which is seen as abuse, and the second method where they may or may not be paid but an adult is doing the recording and distribution, which is seen as exploitation.
But what if it's the teenager themselves that turn on the camera and presses record entirely on their own? The exploitation and abuse arguments no longer hold so I'd imagine that this too may not be so obvious.
The argument that it's illegal to consume or possess the material may still hold if the method of production can't be demonstrated but what about to produce and distribute the content?
I certainly would have pursued an amateur career as a teenager for extra money if it was available. Also, if the content was still floating around now, 20 years later, the only thing I'd feel would be extremely flattered.
There's plenty of cases of kids being charged with, and convicted of, production of child pornography by sharing nude selfies on Snapchat:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjvnx3/minors-can-be-convict...
Interesting. This seems rather bizarre. The whole sex crime framework needs to be fundamentally revisited.
Someone taking a photo of themselves to share privately with someone sounds in the clear.
When these laws were written someone would have had to process the film themself, make a print, address an envelope and put it in the mail. A teenager doing that for a casual recipient sounds like some outlandish stunt in a John Waters film. The courts and legislatures can be forgiven for not having accommodated for such things.
However we now live in clearly different times.
It's almost like the political fallout would be so severe that neither judges nor politicians are willing to exercise the political capital so everyone stays in the lane no matter how absurd things get.
Being called a "pro-pedophilia" candidate for claiming teenagers shouldn't become sex-offending criminals for taking photographs of themselves would be a daunting attack to work through. In a position of power I'd probably also assess it's not worth the political capital and stick with the program as well.
Maybe there needs to be a more favorable case like say, a secretly sexually active teenager uses an online medical service to send photographs about a possible infection and their over-reacting zealous parents find out, become outraged, and try to sue the medical service for possessing underage content.
Should have went with a first amendment challenge in federal court.
Silly state legislatures.
If only these defendants had money.
> Should have went with a first amendment challenge in federal court
The nature of the case in-question is clearly one of obscenity (the subject was sexually harassing someone else, which is definitely not protected by first-amendment rights).
As a WA resident myself, I'm disappointed in the judgement (though that depends on what the State Supreme Court's role is - it's unclear to me if they were deciding what the law said or if they were deciding _what was just_ in the circumstances - kinda like how the US Supreme Court will decide if a given law is constitutional or not, regardless of how _just_ or actually necessary that law is for a well-functioning society - this wouldn't be as big a problem if the US would end its sacrosanct, holy-text treatment of the Constitution - I used to admire and revel in the simplicity of a short written, principled, constitution - but now that I'm older, wiser and far more cynical I feel the other countries' approach of "the law IS the constitution" makes it easier to be responsive and reactive without necessarily betraying any long-standing principles.
It looks to me like the state Supreme Court just deferred to the legislatures and assumed what they meant
It wasn’t argued on Washington or Federal constitutional free speech grounds
I think they totally could challenge in Federal Court whether the state legislature’s interest in protection outweighed the individual minor’s 1st amendment rights, punting it back to the state trial court to convict only on the harassment grounds
If there is no physical contact, how is what happens different than a strip club? I think prostitution requires physical contact.
Depends on the State. In some full nude is not allowed. Others it’s only allowed if alcohol isn’t served. Others not at all.
Which states have laws that define prostitution as not requiring physical contact?
Sorority houses were formerly banned in Louisiana.
Something along the lines of n women living together was considered legally a brothel.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brothel-laws-sororities/
Huh, thanks for that.
When lore’s been in your head long enough, I guess you just forget to question it.
Parent was talking about strip club laws, not prostitution laws.
Parent of parent was talking about the difference between stripping and prostituion.
Nope. That post was _asking_ about the difference between stripping in a club, and streaming sex work on the web.
>If there is no physical contact, how is what happens different than a strip club? I think prostitution requires physical contact.
what about lap dances? they are certainly physical contact.
> Afaik the exception pornography initially had which made it exist outside of sex work rules hinged on where the money came from. If it was from someone engaging in the act, then it's prostitution. If it's someone else, then it's acting.
At the risk of stating the obvious here I'm pretty sure the difference was whether it was filmed or not.
Another thing that is pretty interesting about this is that many people use OnlyFans as an alternative to Patreon, where they aren't just selling skin they are selling anything to fans and curious people.
The owner is definitely in the business of making erotic cam and pornography websites with no ambiguity. I didn't actually know that beforehand.
Cached version here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20201028000024/https://forensicn...
OnlyFans scammed me out of money by making me ‘subscribe’ to a user that I had no intention of subscribing to. Then I asked support to request a refund, only for them to say we don’t offer refunds under any circumstances
This is why PayPal is so popular with consumers. The Internet is full of shady businesses who will abuse your payment information. For all its issues from a business perspective, from a consumer perspective, PayPal's stance of the consumer is always right is a great thing.
I wonder if there's some money laundering going on, like taking payments to models and cashing it out to bank accounts they don't control
Seems down, hug of death?
Does anyone have a cached version?
Is there a reason why Hacker News and Reddit and other sites don't provide a cache to external links?
Probably copyright. You’d be using their content and taking away their potential revenue (from ads and whatnot) without their permission. News sites already want Facebook to have to pay for linking to them, never mind copying their content and not giving them their ad hits.
Underage and all. "Man in jail" walking. If i were him I'd sell it and move on.
why is this on HN?
So you're telling me that a degenerate website is ran by a degenerate?
Surely you _must_ be joking?
Is there any evidence that this piece politically motivated? Like is the guy a Trump donor or a Biden donor or something?
I'm asking this in good faith: Why would you assume political motivation for this post?
I’m certain there isn’t a political motive behind this article but I can only assume the question is based on background knowledge that the linked site and one of the bylines has been a powerhouse of trump exposes.
far more likely its "morally" motivated. because this site is corrupting people or some such.