The UK Babe Channels Forum

(20-08-2021 21:18 )Rake Wrote: [ -> ]So a bunch of woke bankers (who spend their spare time coked up and screwing hookers) are pretending that there is something wrong with sexual conduct between humans?

No, they think there's something wrong with exploiting underage girls.

I don't think you need to be 'woke' to hold that view, do you?

^On a timescale in your opinion HP how long would you give Onlyfans to remain in business?

(21-08-2021 07:54 )The Silent Majority Wrote: [ -> ]

(20-08-2021 21:18 )Rake Wrote: [ -> ]So a bunch of woke bankers (who spend their spare time coked up and screwing hookers) are pretending that there is something wrong with sexual conduct between humans?

No, they think there's something wrong with exploiting underage girls.

I don't think you need to be 'woke' to hold that view, do you?

You clearly think too concretely to see satire - or just choose to in order to be characteristically disagreeable.

Let’s hope they age-verify and trafficked-check their hookers in the future then.

As the postculture Twitter thread amply elucidates, the underage and trafficking matter is a device for enabling a much wider ideological war on internet sexual services. The numbers of underage or trafficked creators on OF must be infinitesimal.

^^^SM if you haven't already please read the New York Times piece that started all this (prior to the pornhub case) and the BBC one that 'helped out' on this occasion and really focus on how much proper evidence of illegality was included there (i.e. not that much). Then compare it to the amount of sheer venting, hand wringing and classic moral panic is in them. Yes these illegal aspects should've been pursued (in both cases). But when did we let big business become judge and jury? When did we let them dictate what legal content could be outputted by another company? Let the block thousands (millions?) of peoples entirely legal livelihoods.. Especially off the back of such dubious and biased sources. This is an insidious over reach. One we will look back on one day and realise we let a massive precedent slip by on the back of stuff that we have proper due processes in place to deal with.

(21-08-2021 08:17 )lovebabes56 Wrote: [ -> ]^On a timescale in your opinion HP how long would you give Onlyfans to remain in business?

proberly have to rebrand and set themselves up as a social media platform im sure they will get backing from the banks and private capital

I just thought of this...
I wonder if Studio66 will have to give their 30% (or whatever it was) OF cut back to the girls should the girls migrate fron OF?

(21-08-2021 03:35 )7 stars of the orient Wrote: [ -> ]Another comment by OnlyFans. They seem to have changed the rules but find it difficult to straightforwardly say that the rules have been changed.

Hmmmm

I sent them a twitter DM about this at 7:30am yesterday and not had a single reply to that message.

Now considering my OF position... should I stay or should I go?

Well I only sub to Jamie Jones these days (there was a couple of others in the past), she's currently working out what to do after this announcement. So if she leaves for another platform I have no issues with leaving OF to die a death.

(21-08-2021 08:30 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]^^^SM if you haven't already please read the New York Times piece that started all this (prior to the pornhub case) and the BBC one that 'helped out' on this occasion and really focus on how much proper evidence of illegality was included there (i.e. not that much). Then compare it to the amount of sheer venting, hand wringing and classic moral panic is in them. Yes these illegal aspects should've been pursued (in both cases). But when did we let big business become judge and jury? When did we let them dictate what legal content could be outputted by another company? Let the block thousands (millions?) of peoples entirely legal livelihoods.. Especially off the back of such dubious and biased sources. This is an insidious over reach. One we will look back on one day and realise we let a massive precedent slip by on the back of stuff that we have proper due processes in place to deal with.

You're trying to put far too broad an interpretation on the comment I made, which was simply this - when did being against the exploitation of underage girls come under the banner of being 'woke'?

I notice Rake managed to sidestep the question as well.

I'm as against the over-regulation of legal porn as anyone on here. I'm also against the sexual exploitation of minors and vulnerable people.

Those two values can sit quite comfortably together in my head.

And this action from Mastercard has brought about massive over-regulation of legal porn. Either you are for or against the specific action they have taken (despite their obvious fore knowledge of its likely impacts).

Everyone can see and hold values of various standards but the question is practical applications of these values in a proportionate manner that upholds the values of a free and democratic civilised society. The arrogance of the likes of Mastercard when they reach such decisions is outstanding. They are acting as government and judiciary here.

Scoring points about which ideology is to blame for the latest liberty grab is piffle in contrast. The religious right have learnt from the 'woke'. Unfortunately we will all suffer from reaping what they sowed. This is only the start. Next chapter: The Online Harms Bill.