Opinions on onlyfans and adult entertainment industry

Gatling wrote: »

I've spent hours on discord , WhatsApp , Telegram and a few others , PornHub ,you porn ,and several other porn sites.
There is nothing connected to this leak ,yet 3 /4 girls on twitter have found tens of thousands of images and videos relating to the only fans leak ,

And told the mammy of the 16y.o NZ lad!
That told him!!!
Because of course that's how you deal with blackmail and sexual image offending.
You tell the mammy?

MrMusician18

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I think you mean 'nothing has been leaked to the public domain ' when you say nothing has been found.

Given the amount of publicity surrounding this, you'd expect at least one person to come out and say they've seen it.

But not even the resident spoofers on boards are claiming to have. There is an absence of evidence here, so occam's razor should be applied.

seamus

Padre_Pio wrote: »

What is the definition?

I assume OnlyFans stuff wouldn't be intimate?

Depends

“intimate image” means a visual recording of a person made by any means including a
photographic, film or video recording (whether or not the image of the person has
been altered in any way)—
(a) (i) of his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts (whether covered by
underwear or bare), or
(ii) in which the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal
region or her breasts, or
(iii) in which the person is engaged in sexual activity,

(b) in respect of which, if it was recorded with consent, at the time of the recording and afterwards there were circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy;

It hinges on the last part - "reasonable expectation of privacy".

If someone created OnlyFans content for a specific audience, and it was clear that this was content for a specific audience - especially if it had been created for an individual, then that, IMO, gives rise to the "reasonable expectation of privacy". Having paid for the content doesn't magically change it from "private" to "public".

Showing my ignorance of OF now, but if the creator creates content for a reasonably large audience of clients; say 50 or 100, then there may be an argument that the reasonable expectation of privacy has been lost.

Gatling

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I think you mean 'nothing has been leaked to the public domain ' when you say nothing has been found.

I've spent hours on discord , WhatsApp , Telegram and a few others , PornHub ,you porn ,and several other porn sites.
There is nothing connected to this leak ,yet 3 /4 girls on twitter have found tens of thousands of images and videos relating to the only fans leak ,

Feisar

I took a dander over to 4chan expecting to see a load of Bridie's in the buff but it does all seem to be a fugazi.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I think you mean 'nothing has been leaked to the public domain ' when you say nothing has been found.

But according to those reporting the issue, the images are already in the public domain?

But, now they aren't?
Who took them down? Those nasty digital consent denying rapists?
If such a cache exists, do you believe discord was the sole means of sharing?
It's only those 500, and they never shared further?

How can it be both public? And not public?

[Deleted User]

Gatling wrote: »

Nothing no photos ,no videos absolutely nothing has been found relating to this

I think you mean 'nothing has been leaked to the public domain ' when you say nothing has been found.

Batrachotox wrote: »

No I'm reporting what I've been told is there, as you say

I know

Sorry if I seemed a bit hyperbolic, but that's all anyone is doing because this great cache of CP containing explicit photos doesn't exist.

Yes there are creeps sharing Onlyfans, yes there are people aggregating hot girls photos from social media and even sharing those.
But that's not sexual offending assault or any flavour of anything other than a loss of income to one party and a lesson in privacy settings to the other.

The cache that was reported as the trigger for this is moving towards the back of the reasons to be outraged, to be replaced by what was done to Dara Quigley.

One of those is a heinous act worthy of punishment.
The other a copyright issue that is being conflated with sexual abuse.
It's also a convenient bandwagon for an underfire minister.

Legislation is needed, but look at the context?
Why was it no good 3 years ago? But suitable now?
Why the sudden jump to this being a government priority, when part of the Government who were actually in power 3 years ago shot it down.

[Deleted User]

banie01 wrote: »

So you've seen the cache of images that were the trigger for this escalation?

If you have, your the 1st!
Because everyone is only reporting what they have been told is there at the moment.

No I'm reporting what I've been told is there, as you say

anewme wrote: »

Ahhhh so everyone is out of step except the people here.

I would see the people here as not understanding the issues more than the legally written legislation.

When people push back against laws implemented to protect people, youd have to question their motives.

Now, maybe it wont be passed tomorrow- what do you think?

Are you of the opinion that an adult content creator who willfully takes and sells explicit photos of themselves, receive the same or similiar legal protection to those images being shared as underage kids and people whose intention it was to keep images private/unknowingly were photographed?

That, to me, is what the leglislation and those backing it are doing.

Batrachotox wrote: »

However it appears the majority of the images that were shared on that discord are images from Onlyfans i.e. explicit images willingly uploaded by the women in question for profit - I'm afraid I'd have little to no sympathy for this latter group. What I don't like is how the media have conflated the two, making the problem appear much more severe.

So you've seen the cache of images that were the trigger for this escalation?

If you have, your the 1st!
Because everyone is only reporting what they have been told is there at the moment.

anewme wrote: »

Again, another totally incorrect assumption in the rush to blame those pesky "feminists".

The bill is not hastily written - it goes back to 2017.

But FG have taken this on as a crusade now

Can't help but wonder why?

Why is it good enough for FG now?
When 3yrs ago?
It wasn't!

banie01 wrote: »

What's even more interesting is the laws aren't hastily written.
There may well be a hasty amendment or 2 added, but the bill being pursued with such urgency by FG and by minister McEntee was outright rejected 3yrs when Labour originally authored it.

This is a 3 year old bill, that was rejected by FG that is now the highest priority of the FG arm of Govt and the currently under pressure justice minister.

Seems like anyone pointing a finger and asking why is this a priority now?
Is enabling exploitation...

Rather than asking what benefit does a minister who has partaken in what amounts to chicanery regarding the appointment of a SC judge, have to gain by suddenly becoming a feminist crusader and smiter of pornography sharers (rather than producers) has to possibly gain by such action?

kippy wrote: »

You plainly don't understand the issues, nor does the leglislature by the looks of it.

Ahhhh so everyone is out of step except the people here.

I would see the people here as not understanding the issues more than the legally written legislation.

When people push back against laws implemented to protect people, youd have to question their motives.

Now, maybe it wont be passed tomorrow- what do you think?

[Deleted User]

Yurt! wrote: »

For the adult women who willingly shared sexual content on a pornography platform, my sympathy is extremely limited. I understand this is the overwhelming majority of the "leak". In this case, I completely disagree with your "asking for it analogy" and for far reaching laws to be hastily written off the back of a feminist moral panic is dangerous indeed.

Genuine intimate videos shared with a partner is a different matter and while we should tread carefully, some sort of legal parameters should be set down I agree.

This would be my take on it too.

Would have huge sympathy for women who have intimate photos leaked by vindictive exes - they should be legally protected.

However it appears the majority of the images that were shared on that discord are images from Onlyfans i.e. explicit images willingly uploaded by the women in question for profit - I'm afraid I'd have little to no sympathy for this latter group. What I don't like is how the media have conflated the two, making the problem appear much more severe.

Yurt! wrote: »

For the adult women who willingly shared sexual content on a pornography platform, my sympathy is extremely limited. I understand this is the overwhelming majority of the "leak". In this case, I completely disagree with your "asking for it analogy" and for far reaching laws to be hastily written off the back of a feminist moral panic is dangerous indeed.

Genuine intimate videos shared with a partner is a different matter and while we should tread carefully, some sort of legal parameters should be set down I agree.

Again, another totally incorrect assumption in the rush to blame those pesky "feminists".

The bill is not hastily written - it goes back to 2017.

anewme wrote: »

I wasn’t muddying the waters. I was telling you what was being pushed for in legislation. You said I was getting mixed up, but the legislation has come out for approval the way I said.

My point being is that you think I don’t understand issues, when I do.

What I’ve said above is that a few strategic and reported prosecutions will send a warning shot across the bow to many people.

You plainly don't understand the issues, nor does the leglislature by the looks of it.

Some Yoke

Jesus is King

Padre_Pio

bigpink wrote: »

He send him hate directly
An Irish porn star putting pictures online what can they do?

Exactly. OnlyFans is a website, sure it's all there for anyone to take and share anonymously.

MrMusician18

Gatling wrote: »

Apparently it's possible as long as victims advocacy groups are Pushing it ,
Taught they were supposed to support victims of crimes not encourage and promote online sex work and porn streaming .

That's an interesting comment. I hadn't heard of onlyfans until this thread as an example.

I wonder how much traffic the publicity around these laws is driving to the site.

bigpink

anewme wrote: »

The lad sending hate to Ian Wright was charged and found, this will be similar. A few examples made of people will have a very large impact on others behaviour, lets be honest, the people doing this are snakes and cowards and the threat of being outed for it and the shame on their families will have concerns.

He send him hate directly
An Irish porn star putting pictures online what can they do?

Gatling

anewme wrote: »

What I’ve said above is that a few strategic and reported prosecutions will send a warning shot across the bow to many people.

Pure nonsense

Strategic reported prosocutions sounds like Moscow show trials.

Will they have to present evidence or will a twitter post suffice to get someone locked up for 7 years

kippy wrote: »

Well you were and this is muddying the waters and will make it much more difficult for victims to get some justice.

Do you really think that the gardai/state have the resources to investigate and prosecute every single copyright infringement that takes place when it comes to content that adult creators sell to individuals?
Do you honestly think that?

Do you really think that this is a good development? If so, there's little point.

I wasn’t muddying the waters. I was telling you what was being pushed for in legislation. You said I was getting mixed up, but the legislation has come out for approval the way I said.

My point being is that you think I don’t understand issues, when I do.

What I’ve said above is that a few strategic and reported prosecutions will send a warning shot across the bow to many people.

anewme wrote: »

The other day you accused me of getting mixed up with what was coming in the legislation. Given what came out today, it was not me who had "crossed wires". It was actually you.

If you believe that it is muddying things, thats your prespective - I dont agree.

Has come on the 1 o clock news there on the Radio again.

Well you were and this is muddying the waters and will make it much more difficult for victims to get some justice.

Do you really think that the gardai/state have the resources to investigate and prosecute every single copyright infringement that takes place when it comes to content that adult creators sell to individuals?
Do you honestly think that?

Do you really think that this is a good development? If so, there's little point.

kippy wrote: »

I don't think you appreciate the massive potential issues involved in getting a prosecution in something like this.

The other day you accused me of getting mixed up with what was coming in the legislation. Given what came out today, it was not me who had "crossed wires". It was actually you.

If you believe that it is muddying things, thats your prespective - I dont agree.

Has come on the 1 o clock news there on the Radio again.

kippy wrote: »

I don't think you appreciate the massive potential issues involved in getting a prosecution in something like this.

The lad sending hate to Ian Wright was charged and found, this will be similar. A few examples made of people will have a very large impact on others behaviour, lets be honest, the people doing this are snakes and cowards and the threat of being outed for it and the shame on their families will have concerns.

anewme wrote: »

A risk of prosecution will deter some people, whether you agree or not. Once a prosectution takes place - it will start to filter down - especially the likes of the "lads" spreading banter that this type of behaviour will impact your future. Same as sending hate to people on Twitter/Insta has recently led to people being arrested (footballer chap, dont know who he is)

Seeing

I don't think you appreciate the massive potential issues involved in getting a prosecution in something like this.

Gatling

anewme wrote: »

A risk of prosecution will deter some people,

Not a hope ,