Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the the-discourse dept

This week, both our winners on the insightful side come in response to our post about OnlyFans and its announcement that it would no longer host sexually explicit content. In first place, it's James Burkhardt with some thoughts:

A huge angle I think worth exploring

OF is seeking to limit sexually explicit content to gain INVESTORS.

Why is this meaningful? OF's amazing income, which is the attraction for investors, is built on this content. Just like Tumblr's value plummeted from Verizon's acquisition to Verizon's sale of OF, from 1 billion to 20 million. Nearly Two full orders of magnitude. The major loss seems to be from Tumblr's user exodus in the wake of a no-sexual-content policy that also killed off large Trans and Neurodivergent communities supporting each other, including my discussing unique challenges romantic and sexual relationships faced in these communities. A huge reason some communities left is the lack of clarity for what was allowed (text was supposed to be okay, then it wasn't).

Its the curated audience problem. OF has a giant audience looking for sexually explicit material. When it cuts off that audience, like a minecraft or fortnite youtuber shifting to a new game, that audience, and the income, goes away.

Any investor looking to invest in OF at a valuation based on the last 2 years growth is a fool, and the attempt to cash out the owner at the expense of those who built the platform's value deserves to tank the entire endevor.

In second place, it's Samuel Abram both quoting and seeking input from another commenter:

Considering what Stephen T. Stone said…

The difference between "Moderation" and "Censorship" is that:
-"Moderation" is "You can't do that here." Whereas,
-"Censorship" is "You can't do that anywhere."

Considering that it's likely FOSTA and SESTA is creating such a chilling effect, I think what OnlyFans is doing is more along the lines of "Censorship". What says Stephen T. Stone?

For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with James Burkhardt's other comment about the OnlyFans news, this time responding to a commenter drawing a parallel to the shutdown of gambling sites and alleging that the real issue is performers not paying taxes:

You are wrong. Betting websites were shut down in 2011 for violating state level gambling as well as money laundering and wire fraud by manipulating transaction data on payouts to appear as something other than income from gambling. While not stated in the case, they likely did not report gambling winnings to the IRS, as required by law.

A corp like OF, looking for investors, is absolutely reporting its income to the IRS and would, like patreon, report 1099-NEC income earned on its platform to the government. I know, for a fact, Only fans requires tax info to pay out more than $600 in a calender year to comply with reporting requirements. You don't report that thousands of content creators are earning over 50K to investors if you aren't reporting that income.

It was a huge MRA talking point that cam girls weren't paying taxes a few years back. This was not based in anything solid. The basis was that at the same time those workers were getting hit by the IRS. But the idea these were people trying to hide income is, generally bunk. It wasn't a widespread issue and those hit were hit because because the sites (chaturbate, MFC) were reporting income to the IRS and the actual issue was many of these young girls were unaware of the special tax situtaion an independent contractor is in (i.e. you need to pay taxes quarterly, not just at the end of the year). The people "not paying taxes" were, and reporting requirements caught those doing it wrong. Which is why it didn't make headline news about MFC not reporting income and being indicted.

The content is legal. It isn't about "not paying taxes". Its about Onlyfans trying to cash out its founder, and finding no one other than a porn mogel wants to invest in a site known for porn thanks to our entire history of law enforcement and anything sex related online.

Next, it's Stephen T. Stone responding piece-by-piece to another comment on our post about how you can't regulate Facebook as if it were the entire internet:

"Facebook isn't the entire internet, but it has a near monopoly in its sector."

Twitter, the Fediverse, Discord, and a multitude of other social media/communication services say otherwise. Popularity alone does not make a monopoly.

"Rather than trying to create a set of rules that applies to everything, it is probably more useful to target the near monopoly itself."

And that would still require regulations that don’t drag down the entire Internet with Facebook.

"Perhaps by breaking up the company, or declaring it a common carrier would be a better approach."

Breaking up, maybe, but Facebook is not a common carrier. Trying to declare it one only because you hate it is a new low for you.

"Getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest."

I’m glad to know you support pro-queer and anti-racist ideologies, but your support for pro-terrorism and pro-pedophilia ideologies is…unfortunate.

Over on the funny side, our first place winner is an anonymous response to our post about the GOP's obsession with social media, which we referred to as rallying around something small:

But enough about their dear leader's hands...

In second place, it's another anonymous comment, this time replying to one commenter's repeated assertion that "getting censored proves that your opinion is the strongest":

OK so if I say "Koby is a moron" and people flag me so the comment gets hidden, that means I have the strongest opinion, right?

(The comment was, indeeed, flagged and hidden.)

For editor's choice on the funny side, our first place winner is David with a response to the question of why Trump's friends haven't presented their evidence of election fraud in the Dominion lawsuit:

They are protecting their sources.

From being laughed out of court.

Finally, it's Stephen T. Stone with another thought about the Dominion lawsuit:

Damn. I’m on the side of a corporate behemoth in this fight, and all I needed to get there was watching a bunch of right-wing grifters lie about election integrity. How dare those assholes make me side with Dominion.

That's all for this week, folks!

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team