OnlyFans - Rule Changes

(25-08-2021 15:25 )PhredE Wrote:  It's not just the card issuers (Amex, Visa and Mastercard) that are the issue - many payment handlers (the likes of PayPal, WorldPay etc) are also flexing muscles and restricting the types of businesses they are prepared to deal with.

PayPal has always been like that though. From its inception in 1998 it had a complete ban on anything even remotely considered adult content. It's only in recent years that they have relaxed their stance somewhat. Since 2015 you can use PayPal to subscribe to a porn site - but only if you do it via Epoch. You can also use PayPal to buy physical adult products (DVDs etc) - but only if you live in the USA. So PayPal are not really flexing their muscles in regard to the adult industry these days, but have actually started to work with it a little.

Wheel out the founder (and now minority shareholder) as the acceptable face of the company, because the real owner is as dodgy as fuck....

Blame 1 or more huge corporations to make it look like the little guy is being bullied.


Claim that the other side has made concessions when in reality they probably wouldn't be too bothered if Onlyfans disappeared tomorrow.


Nope, doesn't look anything like a desperate attempt to stop the mass exodus of Creators and Members that's been going on. I saw one model on Twitter claim that she'd lost 500 subscribers in 24 hours.


I also hear that "Frisk" has been hacked for the 2nd time in under a year. It's not a site I'm familiar with but be careful which is these small sites you sign up with peeps. Personally speaking, after a recent bank account change I'm keeping all my cards clean now. No MFC and definitely no "fan" sites.

Bex Shiner's tweet said it all really

Have OF ever put out an official apology?

If the banking 'issue' was as easily resolved as it appears to have been, it could have been done on the quiet without any need for this whole charade.

Have I understood this story correctly? That Onlyfans expected creators to modify their content and change their business model to suit the proposed policy change and were surprised when sex workers decided to jump ship?

(26-08-2021 23:25 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  If the banking 'issue' was as easily resolved as it appears to have been, it could have been done on the quiet without any need for this whole charade.

Unless the problematic banks only played ball because the very public charade threatened the big money they mistakenly believed would never go away? Then the charade becomes a necessary part of the resolution. (I'm not suggesting OF did this all purposefully mind.)

How many times have we seen publicity bring about results we suspect would otherwise never have accrued. Politics, sport, even laws have been swayed by a public backlash. When consumer spends are embroiled it seems more likely each time these days.

(27-08-2021 17:37 )ShandyHand Wrote:  Unless the problematic banks only played ball because the very public charade threatened the big money they mistakenly believed would never go away? Then the charade becomes a necessary part of the resolution. (I'm not suggesting OF did this all purposefully mind.)

Assuming there ever was a problem with the bank...

(27-08-2021 00:58 )get in the van Wrote:  Onlyfans expected creators to modify their content and change their business model to suit the proposed policy change and were surprised when sex workers decided to jump ship?

Perhaps they expected some people to leave but hadn't anticipated a mass exodus.

(24-08-2021 21:22 )ShandyHand Wrote:  The article plainly states OF were "forced" into their actions. Stokley is directly quoted as saying they felt they had "no choice" but to do what they did. I'd say that is complete vindication for my use of "compelled" wouldn't you?

No I wouldn't. There's always a choice. Some banks like Barclays and NatWest won't deal with sex shops, but sex shops still exist so there must be some banks they can use. Some banks even specialise in business that the high street banks reject. Escort Agencies seem to manage with banking and credit card payments despite being nothing more than fronts for prostitution. So I don't believe that OnlyFans were forced into anything.

^ Theoretically valid. But none of the things you mention is a multi million dollar business. Economically viable on that scale? I dunno. I'm prepared to admit I don't know what practical options OF had left to them at the relevant time. Are you?