Opinions on onlyfans and adult entertainment industry

sasta le wrote: »

No problem it's just an opinion
I just get the feeling of trying to be a professional victim.

You said they were 'in the wrong'. What is inherently wrong about setting up an OnlyFans channel?

banie01 wrote: »

She has undertaken heinous behaviour, in doxxing a child but hey sure apparently he had it coming according to one poster here.

Why you lie?

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I would take that as no child abuse then, unless they haven't gone through all the images, but then I suppose he would say they're still investigating

It's an interesting point. Could they really have gone through thousands of photos, one by one, to come to that conclusion? How would they know the ages of the subjects in the thousands of photos, which is a key factor in determining the legality of possession of the photos?

banie01 wrote: »

Was the phot of someone naked created to be shared for profit?

Does creating a photo (or anything) for profit mean that you give up your rights to be protected from abuse, such as blackmail, harassment, extortion?

The_Brood wrote: »

Suggesting common decency and civility gets your branded as a far-right prudish bigot by the internet, so you won't see it much.

If you knowingly and willfully share sexually explicit photos on the internet I have 0 sympathy for whatever consequences you face. People stealing those photos are in the wrong, but so are you.

Just on that point, I don't actually agree.
The context of how they were created and why they were shared matters.

Swapping pics back and forth with a partner, then it goes south and one of you sticks the pics online in a fit of pique?
That needs legislation.
Someone using such images to blackmail someone?
Well there's legislation that already covers that.
Actually hacking someone's could storage or device and sharing the images?
Needs legislation.
And people who encounter the above actions are victims of crime and should have appropriate investigation and justice.

The issue I have with this current bandwagon.
Is that there is a very calculated and deliberate effort to paint people who produce paid for sexual content as victims of offending of a similar level to those of the above crimes.
If someone shares your onlyfans pics and you don't get paid?
That's copyright infringement.
It could also be argued given the porn model, that's it advertising.
If one is producing paid content, but has put all their SM channels on private?
How else are the simps who do pay for this stuff, supposed to find their preferred service providers?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why you lie?

What lie? Point it out and I'll certainly address it.
As for Linda doxxing a child? You have repeatedly refused to acknowledge the potential endangerment?
The one she claimed she undertook here.
That the victims advocate who didn't report blackmail and sexual image abuse to the authorities in a country with robust legislation to deal with same speaks poorly to her credibility.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blackmailers-target-irish-women-over-naked-images-zzwwfbcn5

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Does creating a photo (or anything) for profit mean that you give up your rights to be protected from abuse, such as blackmail, harassment, extortion?

Self Publishing porn for profit, negates any expectation of privacy that can reasonably be expected.
This people are self publishing photos, once they sell the images there is no criminal offence if they are reshared.

They either want to produce porn for profit, or they want a reasonable expectation of privacy.
One is completely incompatible with the other and as will be shown should a case be taken against someone for sharing "paid" content will not result in a conviction.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can I say it's pretty f*cked?..

What happens when their da buys their photos?
Whose the offender in that instance?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The lie was the bit I quoted above my "Why you lie" question. Where did anyone say that the NZ lad had it coming?

You very strongly implied and as I said, repeatedly refused to condemn Linda for it.

You started off asking what law she'd even report him for breaking.
Then when the legislation in NZ was pointed out to you, you engaged in ridiculous and continuous reductio to avoid acknowledging the danger that act engendered.

banie01 wrote: »

You very strongly implied and as I said, repeatedly refused to condemn Linda for it.

You started off asking what law she'd even report him for breaking.
Then when the legislation in NZ was pointed out to you, you engaged in ridiculous and continuous reductio to avoid acknowledging the danger that act engendered.

So why you lie?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why exactly does setting up an OF channel mean giving up anything other than the ability of the paying customers to see the material you publish?

Why exactly is any other copyrighted work pirated?
What's the success rate for criminal prosecutions for piracy and copyright infringement?

Publishing media on any platform, leads to broader dissemination than just the original purchaser.
Be it a newspaper purchased, read on the train, left behind and picked up by someone else.
A book sold to a local library and lent out 400 times.
Or Fake Taxi spending money on porn production and distribution for a production I can watch for free on X-Videos.

Actually take fake-taxi as an example, how many successful copyright actions have they filed?

This particular subset of women are trying to both have the income that comes with a broadly available and popular pay per view service?
Whilst wanting to maintain privacy...

If privacy mattered all that much?
Why were the onlyfans pages linked to their social media?
If privacy is to be the defence, why was concerted effort was made to actually make people aware of the fact that they were play for pay up to earlier this week?

You can advertise sex imagery, sell said services and claim shock or surprise when your images are suddenly traded freely on a secondary market.

It's like taping a song off the radio, is Mariah coming after me for that time I taped hero for a mixtape and didn't give her a cut?

I'd wholeheartedly support any of the ladies in question should they ever seek to actually take a civil suit and claim damages from any identifiable downloaders.
Heck when I finish my FE1s I'd even pro-bono that!

But seeking to criminalise the sharing of paid for content because they don't like who may see it downstream?
Fúcking ridiculous.

banie01 wrote: »

Again there was no lie.
Let's clarify it for everyone though.
?

So where did I say that the NZ kid had it coming? If you can't answer with a specific quote from me, you lied.

sasta le wrote: »

Is there Irish girls being blackmailed,extorted and harassed?

Yes, according to one report I've seen.

banie01 wrote: »

So he didn't?
So Linda was wrong?
Again with the deflection.
Your comprehension could be an issue on this however as there was a qualifier used in my own post.


Note the apparently in there?
By your continued refusal to address the doxxing and your refusal to actually engage anytime it was it was raised.
It became apparent what you believed.
When asked if my inference was wrong, and whether you specifically thought about the doxxing?

You again refused to answer and deflected.
So it becomes quite apparent what inference is fair to be drawn.

You can clear it up on a couple of words, fire away

I'm not going to be bullied into some game of denial by you. I don't need to deny anything. You lied about what I said, and you don't have the decency to withdraw that lie.

If you're still claiming that you didn't lie, all you need to do is quote the words that I used where I said that the NZ lad had it coming to him.

But we both know you won't be able to do that. The lie gives some context to your other comments.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, according to one report I've seen.



I'm not going to be bullied into some game of denial by you. I don't need to deny anything. You lied about what I said, and you don't have the decency to withdraw that lie.

If you're still claiming that you didn't lie, all you need to do is quote the words that I used where I said that the NZ lad had it coming to him.

But we both know you won't be able to do that. The lie gives some context to your other comments.

I'm withdrawing nothing.
Noone is bullying you.
It's been explained to you in detail why no lie occured.
Your evasion, both of the simple yes or no question you've dodged for the last few posts and of every single time you were asked to give an opinion on the doxxing previously...

Well context isn't needed really is it?
Because you've made your position eminently clear.

Didn't bother reading the feminist drivel earlier.

If you don't take/allow intimate photos/video ....then ....no problem.

sasta le wrote: »

Well harassment, blackmail and extortion is it directly linked to this leak?And what level child porn,image from social media or Onlyfans
Also if any harassment etc I hoped it's charged to full extent of the law
Hopefully a message of don't send nudes and put pictures online gets out across by parents schools organisation s etc

And 'Dont share without permission if sent any'

sasta le wrote: »

Yeah that's a excellent point aswell.Thats the risk tho and at the moment very high
Boys should be taught sexual respect

Everyone should.

sasta le wrote: »

I think men are the problem really I'd even agree there
I've chatted up women asked them out prob gave cheesy compliment s but never abused or harassed any.Maybe there is an argument for the easier access to porn and harder stuff is affecting young men
Altho I'm sure many of us me included have used porn of the legal kind

So lesbians are never subjected to sexual image abuse by their partners, exes?
Hetero women are never subjected to it by other women?
You need to reassess that belief tbh.

Both genders are quite capable of bad behaviour, violence and controlling behaviours.
Women in same sex relationships are prone to even more of that than their hetero counterparts.
An awful lot of academic research out there shows that violence of all types in lesbian relationships is in excess of others.

It's an ethics issue not merely a gender one.
Painting it as a gender issue, again does disservice to people genuinely affected by such issues.
It is almost as bad as wannabe porn stars being upset their work was only paid for once.

On the day Drew Harris says their is nothing to investigate, rumors start spreading that the doc is now being shared around WhatsApp, of course there's no evidence of this....... There is a screenshot of a folder called mega though, with no information as to its contents......

anewme wrote: »

I've read the Times Link a bit differently, Banie.

It seems to confirm there are sites hosting images of people without their consent.

Reading between the lines, just because no one has complained officially to the Gardai as yet does not mean they are not a victim. People may well have decided its best off not coming forward - at the risk of being taken apart - similar to a victim of sexual assault might do before coming forward.

It will take a very brave person to front this up and put themselves in the public eye- even given the feedback here - it might be better to ignore it and hope the folder never shows up to someone you know.

I don't think it is as cut and dried as you are making out and it has not convinced me either way that it is fabricated.

I'm reading it with a practised legal eye and its my opinion.
Others may well have a different view and are entitled to it.

The images being shared aren't fabricated ANM.
The outrage is. I'd also have particular concerns around the sources of the images and the obtaining of the IP of the NZ lad.
Its all far too convenient timing wise for the launch of the new group.

The 4 or so accounts at the centre of this are pushing a narrative that 3rd party sharing of their content is sexual assault.
That content was created for public exhibition for remuneration.

The simplest and most relevant analogy here is Art.
I make 50 paintings and host an exhibition that I charge entry to.
500 people pay that entry fee and view my paintings.
But some people take photos of my art and share that without giving me a royalty.
Have I been the victim of a criminal act?
Have any reasonable expectation of privacy?

I mean even on Reddit, you can go on there click NSFW and view Onlyfans material from around the world.
It's not my cup of tea but it's out there and those women are entering a cut-throat world.
TBH I cannot fathom anyone in the current age of free for all porn wanting to pay for it in the 1st place unless there was something, or more particularly someone that I wanted to see in such a manner.

Thats the crux of this issue, when one creates media/art for a public exhibition?
One cannot subsequently rely on any expectation of privacy when its viewed through a means that doesn't confer a royalty on the creator.
It is solely a copyright and licensing issue, not a criminal one.

Maggie down the road may like supplementing her income by selling onlyfans pics.
Maggie down the road however is not, and should never be considered a victim of crime when those pictures she chose to create and publish are seen by others.
Where this becomes even odder is that until a few days ago, the vast majority accounts involved in creating this outrage.
Listed their Onlyfans on their other Social media, they identified themselves and publically advertised.
There can be no breach of privacy when you advertise what it is you do, everywhere you post.

We need to separate the OnlyFans sharing, from actual Sexual Image Abuse.
They are not and cannot ever be considered the same if victims of actual abuse in this manner are ever to feel like they will be heard if they come forward.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Do the OnlyFans women seeking to have the unauthorised use of their commercial adult stuff treated the same as intimate personal images being made public out of spite?

But they already have protection It's a civil matter .

Not a criminal one

We need to start looking at the mechanism for pushing through these emergency legislations to suit only a few people

anewme wrote: »

I don't think it is as cut and dried as you are making out and it has not convinced me either way that it is fabricated.

It's not, and there are valid frustrations here.

The archive contains identifiable information. When the group contacted the Gardai they were told not to look through it (as it may contain child porn), and that they should not contact anyone in it because that could compromise the investigation.

Now the Gardai have said that they can't do anything about it unless one of the people in the leak makes a complaint. But nobody who is in it, knows they are in it, because nobody has contacted them.

It's a "between two stools" kind of issue. Because at this stage it's probably considered a data breach more than anything else (which is outside the Gardai's remit), and there is no specific evidence nor complaint that anything in there was not permitted to be.

But you can understand the frustration. Imagine you found out that someone had been flying a drone over the country, taking pictures of people sunbathing in their back gardens and storing them along with location details. The first thing you'd want to know is whether you were in it, so you could make a complaint. But you wouldn't be allowed to know whether you were in it, in order to make the complaint.

Seeing as the Gardai have decided there is no child porn in it, it would make the most sense now for this victim's group to actually go through the archive and use the contact details therein to notify the people who are in it. It's legally grey (a Data protection issue at worst), but very unlikely to land them in any hot water.

sasta le wrote: »

The other lady pushing this Megan J Renee I've been told she does Onlyfans and Webcam girl and it's well know in Limerick.
But looking at her Twitter and media bits she never mentions she is a sex worker

Are Megan J Renee, and Megan Sims one and the same?
I mean Megan Sims is victimsalliance.ie's head of image based sexual abuse?

seamus wrote: »

It's not, and there are valid frustrations here.

The archive contains identifiable information. When the group contacted the Gardai they were told not to look through it (as it may contain child porn), and that they should not contact anyone in it because that could compromise the investigation.

Now the Gardai have said that they can't do anything about it unless one of the people in the leak makes a complaint. But nobody who is in it, knows they are in it, because nobody has contacted them.

It's a "between two stools" kind of issue. Because at this stage it's probably considered a data breach more than anything else (which is outside the Gardai's remit), and there is no specific evidence nor complaint that anything in there was not permitted to be.

But you can understand the frustration. Imagine you found out that someone had been flying a drone over the country, taking pictures of people sunbathing in their back gardens and storing them along with location details. The first thing you'd want to know is whether you were in it, so you could make a complaint. But you wouldn't be allowed to know whether you were in it, in order to make the complaint.

Seeing as the Gardai have decided there is no child porn in it, it would make the most sense now for this victim's group to actually go through the archive and use the contact details therein to notify the people who are in it. It's legally grey (a Data protection issue at worst), but very unlikely to land them in any hot water.

Very good summary and that makes perfect sense.

The other side of it is that we can't see what the pictures actually are and how they were stored and commented on, so that would be another issue. If you thought all and sundry were commenting on a family photo or an instagram photo of your family member, you'd go legal on it. But you dont know, what you dont know, as you say.

The question now is will the new legislation cover both private photos and the Only Fans type of photos - it remains to be seen.

banie01 wrote: »

So Harris has actually done far more than just say no victims identified.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda%C3%AD-receive-no-complaints-about-sharing-of-intimate-images-online-says-harris-1.4419358



Also of note.


That new charity's effort at a blockbuster...
Has fallen flat on its face.
Actual victims of such crimes as blackmail, coercive control and any other form of Sexual Image based abuse have been used as fodder by Linda Hayden and co in an effort to protect monetisation.
They have been victimised in a new and insidious manner by people courting media while purporting to protect them.
A travesty, and an actual injustice there that will be just ignored because if and when an issue does become apparent?
Now it'll be what about the UCD200? What about the OnlyFans leak? Because neither had any substance on review and both will be used to dismiss further reports of actual harm.

Those who cheerled this effort, honestly!
For the sake of a little critical review, thought and questioning?
A lot of harm for the future, and victims being maligned could have been avoided.

https://twitter.com/teflondub/status/1331762330363944960?s=19

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

https://twitter.com/teflondub/status/1331762330363944960?s=19

Nice to see you back, any opinion yourself?
Or are you merely continuing to repeat what you seem to have been told to?

Any disputation to the inference your failure to address Linda doxxing a child lends?

As for throwing herself under a bus?
I'm sure her actions have led to quite a few extra views on her Onlyfans.
So hardly.

The only people thrown under the bus by conflating revenge porn with copyright infringement are the actual victims of blackmail, coercive control and abuse based on images they shared privately or had stolen from them.

Those are the people left wondering what credibility can be assigned to them now they may well be lumped in with onlyfans girls.
The only people hurt are them, and they have my sympathy.
I hope they bypass victimsalliance completely and engage with one of the professional women's and victim support services.

Earlier you said you knew of one instance of blackmail arising out of this?
The Garda commissioner has said there is none, which is it?