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!

This Week In Techdirt History: August 15th - 21st

from the stuff-that-happened dept

Five Years Ago

This week in 2016, a wave of newspapers that had tried out paywall models were discovering they didn't work as well as hoped, and those that had come to rely almost solely on Facebook for traffic were realizing that might have been a mistake. Snowden documents revealed that the NSA and New Zealand had been spying on pro-democracy activists, the DNC set up a Cybersecurity Board that was devoid of cybersecurity experts, and Donald Trump was promising to keep terrorists off the internet. Peter Thiel was taking a weird victory lap regarding Gawker, and we were disappointed to see LinkedIn abusing the CFAA and DMCA to sue scraping bots. Also, an episode of our podcast featured an early discussion of what would become a major theme for us over the past few years: the difference between platforms and protocols.

Ten Years Ago

This week in 2011, some cops were trying to fight citizen recordings with wiretapping charges, and other cops were making excuses about why they can detain harmless photographers. Google spent a cool $12.5-billion to buy Motorola Mobility for all its patents, and we took a look at just what it was getting out of the deal and how it represented the loss to innovation caused by patents. We had a few other posts on the patent system too, looking at how they can be detrimental to the long-term success of startups, debunking the myth that they want or need them, and asking why monopolies for the first to invent something are really so important.

Fifteen Years Ago

This week in 2006, Apple seemed to be on the warpath against any product with "pod" in the name, Jack Thompson was demanding early access to video games so he could get mad about them, and a mistake at Techdirt caused the deletion of a morning's worth of comments. The RIAA oh-so-graciously gave a family 60 days to grieve before continuing its case against a dead man, but then backed down in the face of widespread coverage and backlash, while the recording industry was taking petty revenge on a musician who supported free music and the movie industry was using push polls to defend the theater industry. We also took a look at how the more Hollywood attacks file sharing, the further underground it goes.

Filed Under: history, look back

Edvard Eriksen Estate Goes After Another Danish City For Having A Mermaid Statue

from the under-the-C dept

Who knew that a bronze statue of a mermaid could cause so much trouble. If you're not aware, there is a statue of the Little Mermaid on the shores of the Danish capital Copenhagen. It was created by Edvard Eriksen, who died decades ago. Eriksen's estate, however, is well known to try to claim copyright infringement on any other statues of mermaids that pop up in cities around the world, including in Michigan. Notably in that case, the estate ran away when a public backlash began to emerge. This is also, by the way, the same statue that Facebook has previously removed images of for showing too much "skin", or bronze in this case, as the mermaid is topless, because... mermaids.

Notably, Eriksen based his own artwork on the famous Little Mermaid created by Hans Christian Anderson. Despite that, it seems that any remotely similar mermaid statues find their way into the estate's crosshairs, such as the statue that resides in Asaa, Denmark.

The mermaid that has been watching the harbor in the village of Asaa, in northern Denmark, since 2016 is not an exact replica of the monument in the Danish capital. But for the heirs of Edvard Eriksen, the artist who sculpted the Copenhagen statue, the mermaid Asaa bears too much resemblance. They took legal action, demanding not only financial compensation, but also the demolition of Asaa’s sculpture.

“When I first received the email, I laughed,” said Mikael Klitgaard, the mayor of Broenderslev, the municipality that includes Asaa. “I thought it was a joke.”

The only joke here is the stance of the estate, which doesn't appear to understand the idea/expression dichotomy in copyright laws. Now, to be clear, I'm not 100% clear on whether Danish law differs significantly from American law on the idea/expression dichotomy, though this Thomson Reuters Q&A on the topic appears quite familiar.

Copyright infringement is generally assessed by comparing the works in question and determining whether the allegedly infringing work brings on the same aesthetic experience as the original work. This determination is based on the general impression of the works, as opposed to assessing each detail on its own. When assessing copyright infringement, the courts must take into consideration the general notion that ideas, motifs, information and the like are not protected in Danish copyright law.

Assuming that's accurate, any threat from the estate should be a nonstarter. If you are wondering how similar these works of art are, the answer is: very! But that is because they are bronze statues of mermaids sitting on a rock. Both kneel, both are topless, both are mermaids, and both have the mermaid's tail splayed slightly to one side. But, and this is important, they are not identical. In other words, the statue is not a replica of the Copenhagen statue, but rather a replica of the idea, or inspiration, of Hans Christian Anderson's mermaid. According to the source post, the lawyers on both sides are now talking, with much of the conversation coming down to how similar the statues are. And, it seems, a ton of that relies on the mermaid's posture. Which, as Klitgaard goes on to note, presents a problem.

Carved from granite and weighing three tons, the mermaid Asaa is more plump and her facial features coarser. His posture, however, is the same.

“How else is she going to sit down?” asked Klitgaard, the mayor. “It’s a mermaid. You can’t put her on a chair.

Exactly. Meanwhile, the artist that created the Asaa mermaid, Palle Moerk, is quite confused as to why any of this is a problem for the estate.

The mermaid Asaa was created by Palle Moerk, a local artist and stonemason who carves both tombstones and figurative sculptures; among these, pigs, owls and human hands making gestures (both obscene and not) are favored themes. He had sculpted the mermaid four years before it was purchased by a group of Asaa citizens and donated to the organization that runs the port to commemorate its 140th anniversary.

In an interview, the artist said he resented the accusation of copying Eriksen’s mermaid. “As an artist you understand all kinds of things – and of course I had seen pictures of the mermaid Langelinie,” Moerk explained. “But it was my own inspiration.”

Idea vs. expression. The idea of a mermaid resting on a rock is not protectable by copyright. Exact replicas of the Copenhagen statue are. If this statue is not a replica, nor an attempt at a replica, then the estate is suing over idea and not expression.

In other words, the song from the film is "Under the Sea", not "Under the ©".

Filed Under: asaa, copenhagen, edvard eriksen, han christian anderson, little mermaid, mermaid, mermaid statue, palle moerk
Companies: edvard eriksen estate

Sensitive Data On Afghan Allies Collected By The US Military Is Now In The Hands Of The Taliban

from the fuck-those-helpful-guys,-I-guess dept

The problem with harvesting reams of sensitive data is that it presents a very tempting target for malicious hackers, enemy governments, and other wrongdoers. That hasn't prevented anyone from collecting and storing all of this data, secure only in the knowledge this security will ultimately be breached.

Hack after hack after hack after hack has shown entities seem to be far more interested in collecting data than protecting data. While steps are undoubtedly taken to protect the info gathered by government agencies and numerous super-snoopy private companies, sooner or later they're never enough. It's not that these data collections are always unnecessary. It's that a breach is pretty much inevitable. And yet that inevitability almost always gets greeted as a surprise by those on the end of a malicious hacking.

What's happening in Afghanistan isn't exactly unprecedented. We saw the same thing happen when the United States military pulled out of Vietnam. The enemies that the US presence was supposed to deter were completely undeterred by local military (one we were supposed to be training to be self-reliant) left behind. We have exited one of our Forever Wars and the Taliban -- proud supporters of Al-Qaeda -- is taking over.

The Taliban is getting everything we left behind. It's not just guns, gear, and aircraft. It's the massive biometric collections we amassed while serving as armed ambassadors of goodwill. The stuff the US government compiled to track its allies are now handy repositories that will allow the Taliban to hunt down its enemies. Ken Klippenstein and Sara Sirota have more details for The Intercept.

The devices, known as HIIDE, for Handheld Interagency Identity Detection Equipment, were seized last week during the Taliban’s offensive, according to a Joint Special Operations Command official and three former U.S. military personnel, all of whom worried that sensitive data they contain could be used by the Taliban. HIIDE devices contain identifying biometric data such as iris scans and fingerprints, as well as biographical information, and are used to access large centralized databases. It’s unclear how much of the U.S. military’s biometric database on the Afghan population has been compromised.

At first, it might seem that this will only allow the Taliban to high-five each other for making the US government's shit list. But it wasn't just used to track terrorists. It was used to track allies.

While billed by the U.S. military as a means of tracking terrorists and other insurgents, biometric data on Afghans who assisted the U.S. was also widely collected and used in identification cards, sources said.

The Defense Intelligence Agency that oversaw these data collections understandably had no comment. I mean, what could it say? That this wasn't an inevitability? That pulling out of a country means taking all your stuff with you, including tons of data that won't even need to be exfiltrated to end up in enemy hands?

And even as the fall of Afghanistan appeared to be the inevitable outcome of leaving the country, the US government was trying to add to the pile of sensitive data now in the Taliban's possession.

[A] recent job posting by a State Department contractor sought to recruit a biometric technician with experience using HIIDE and other similar equipment to help vet personnel and enroll local Afghans seeking employment at U.S. embassies and consulates.

To claim this couldn't be foreseen is ridiculous. Decades of propping up the Afghanistan government didn't make the area any more stable. The never-ending War on Terror ensured tons of sensitive data would be compiled, especially in countries where US-based constitutional rights don't apply. Pulling out may have been the right thing to do, but abandoning devices containing data on local allies and supporters is insane. Our government has had more than 200 years of practice. The people who helped us during our many years of ineffective occupation can now be targeted with ease. That should never be considered acceptable. Operational security shouldn't just protect the highest and mightiest in the US government. It should protect everyone the government relies on, including nationals abandoned by a government that had every opportunity to mitigate collateral damage.

Filed Under: afghanistan, data, sensitive data, surveillance, taliban, us military

FTC Tries Tries Again With An Antitrust Case Against Facebook

from the but-the-evidence-of-a-monopoly? dept

As you'll recall, back in December, the FTC filed an antitrust case against Facebook, arguing that Facebook abused a dominant market position to acquire Instagram and WhatsApp for anticompetitive reasons, and that it puts in place anti-competitive polices that harm other companies that it is unable to acquire. At the end of June, the court dismissed the case, saying that the FTC never actually showed any evidence that Facebook is a monopoly -- which is a key part of any antitrust case. However, the judge gave the FTC a chance to amend. Yesterday (the deadline to file the amended complaint), the FTC took another shot at it and filed its amended complaint.

The new complaint is longer (and actually mentions TikTok, which the original didn't!). But is it any stronger? Well, at least the complaint has a more coherent narrative to it, after the original really phoned it in. The complaint tells the story of how Facebook effectively missed the smartphone revolution, and that threatened to enable competitors to gain a stronger foothold in social media with a mobile-first approach. The thing that strikes me, however, is how the "evidence" here actually seems to argue against antitrust violations -- as it shows just how fragile Facebook's position was not that long ago, and how easily someone else might have overtaken Facebook. The fact that Facebook was aware of these competitive threats isn't an admission of antitrust behavior, but rather just the fact that the senior executive suite at Facebook has read Clay Christensen and understands the nature of the Innovator's Dilemma and how disruptive innovation works.

That said, there is more evidence in this complaint that Facebook deliberately sought to undermine competition at a variety of different points. And if the FTC can convince the court that (1) the market definition it has is correct, and (2) that Facebook has monopolistic power in that market, perhaps it can move the case forward. But, again, the complaint focuses heavily on the Instagram and WhatsApp acquisitions, both of which happened many years ago -- at a time when Facebook was nowhere near as big or powerful as it is today. And, importantly, there aren't really examples of them doing the same thing recently. Indeed, we keep seeing new entrants showing up in the social media market -- including Snap, TikTok, and Clubhouse. Those all undermine the argument that Facebook can stop competitors.

But, honestly, parts of the complaint seem to contradict itself. For example, it says that Facebook was a monopoly since 2011 (which it needs to say to cover the Instagram acquisition period):

Facebook holds monopoly power in the provision of personal social networking in the United States and has held such power continuously since at least 2011. Multiple sources of evidence demonstrate that Facebook has monopoly power with respect to U.S. personal social networking services. First, Facebook has maintained a dominant share of the relevant market for U.S. personal social networking from 2011 until the present day. Second, direct evidence indicates that Facebook has monopoly power with respect to U.S. personal social networking services. Further, Facebook’s monopoly power is durable due to significant entry barriers, including direct network effects and high switching costs.

But, in the very same complaint, it says:

By late 2011, Mr. Zuckerberg and other executives realized that Facebook Blue offered a relatively poor experience for mobile users, and that this made Facebook’s monopoly position more vulnerable than it had ever been. In addition, Facebook struggled to translate its social advertising model onto mobile devices. The transition to mobile required Facebook to transform the manner in which its advertisements were displayed: as Mr. Zuckerberg described it, [REDACTED]

Given these mounting consecutive failures, Facebook justifiably feared that its personal social networking monopoly, and its enormous advertising profits, would be threatened by a mobile-first competitor emerging and gaining traction by connecting users in innovative ways and exploiting mobile phones’ photo or messaging capabilities.

So... it's a monopoly, but that monopoly is so fragile that a bunch of new mobile apps from tiny startups threatened to undermine the entire thing? That... doesn't sound like a dominant position, let alone a "monopoly" one.

The market definition section is equally... strange. It insists that "mobile messaging services" are distinct, and not considered to be in the same market as Facebook and its "personal social networking." Um, but Whatsapp is... a mobile messaging service, and a big part of the complaint is about Facebook buying Whatsapp. So, it's hard to see how that makes much sense.

Also, the attempts to distinguish Facebook from other companies -- like Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, Pinterest, and more only seem to serve to highlight... just how much competition Facebook really has:

Personal social networking is distinct from, and not reasonably interchangeable with, specialized social networking services that are designed for, and are utilized by users primarily for, sharing a narrow and highly specialized category of content with a narrow and highly specialized set of users for a narrow and distinct set of purposes. As a result, users employ these services primarily to maintain or communicate with a distinct or narrow set of connections—like engaging in professional networking—and not to connect with friends and family and share the experiences of their personal daily lives. Examples include networks that focus on professional (e.g., LinkedIn) or interest-based (e.g., Strava) connections. Other examples of services that users view as appropriate for limited sharing with a narrow set of connections include some online dating services and Nextdoor, a service which focuses on facilitating sharing only among users that reside in close physical proximity to one another.

Personal social networking is distinct from, and not reasonably interchangeable with, online services that focus on the broadcast or discovery of content based on users’ interests rather than their personal connections. Prominent examples are Twitter, Reddit, and Pinterest. These services do not focus on connecting friends and family: Twitter focuses on enabling users to stay informed about topics that interest them, while Reddit facilitates conversations centered around topics of interest to the participants. As a result, users employ these services primarily to stay informed about and discuss events relevant to their interests (e.g., Twitter), or engage in conversations with communities of mostly anonymous people who share a particular interest (e.g., Reddit), rather than to connect with friends, family, and other personal connections. Therefore, such services are not reasonable substitutes for personal social networking services. In a similar vein, Pinterest allows users to browse content by conducting searches based on their interests, and allows connections based on such interests, but does not focus on connecting users with friends and family and therefore is not an adequate substitute for personal social networking services that do so.

The attempt (in this complaint and absent from the last one) to deal with TikTok seems particularly... weak.

TikTok is a prominent example of a content broadcasting and consumption service that is not an acceptable substitute for personal social networking services. TikTok users primarily view, create, and share video content to an audience that the poster does not personally know, rather than connect and personally engage with friends and family. The purpose for which users employ TikTok, and the predominant form of interaction on the platform, is not driven by users’ desire to interact with networks of friends and family.

I mean, this just feels totally arbitrary. They're not establishing the actual competitive market here. They're basically defining the market as "exactly what Facebook does, and only if someone else does all Facebook does." But that's not how competition works. Competition often looks like just one feature of an existing provider, and then leverages that to grow bigger and to expand. And the FTC complaint just doesn't deal with that at all. Indeed, if you look at the way Facebook has been responding to TikTok, the idea that it's not competitive is simply laughable. I can't imagine that Facebook execs are breathing easy about TikTok's success now that the FTC insists that it's a totally different market.

I still think it's possible that there could be a compelling antitrust argument against Facebook. But this one still feels phoned in. It feels like it's taken a popular narrative, and just assumed it's obvious if they put enough words around it, but without actually showing that it's true.

Filed Under: antitrust, competition, ftc, market definition, social media
Companies: facebook

Chinese Government Censors Back On Their Karoake Song Banlist Bullshit

from the I'd-like-to-teach-the-world-to-sing-government-approved-songs-only dept

The perpetual motion machine that is the Chinese government's censorship arm rolls on. While China has embraced a particularly state-focused form of capitalism, it still engages in the sort of stuff long associated with the Chinese government, like mass censorship, government corruption, and the mass incarceration of undesirable citizens.

Taking a brief break from its strongarm takeover of Hong Kong -- a project that's running decades ahead of schedule -- the government is (again) imposing its will on presumably drunken participants in the world's worst party game, karaoke. (h/t Sarah McLaughlin)

China is set to ban karaoke songs that contain "illegal content", its Ministry of Culture and Tourism has announced.

Songs that fall under this category include those that endanger national unity, sovereignty or territorial integrity.

Songs that aren't sufficiently celebratory will apparently be whisked away to songwriting camps in order to infuse the lyrics with the appropriately pro-government sentiments.

Those who provide content to karaoke venues have been urged to review the songs and flag up to the ministry those that are potentially harmful.

Actually, it may be karaoke providers being whisked away if they're not providing uplifting melodies celebrating the many triumphs of the Chinese government, each one more triumphant than the last. (But not so triumphant they overshadow past triumphs, lest citizens find themselves not celebrating their historic betters by singing along in a "what have you done for me lately" fashion.)

One of the many, many triumphs of the Chinese government is its past victories over the impetuousness of ineptly-sung versions of popular tunes. No doubt many new songs have been written about the Chinese government's defeat of the old standby [squints at news report] "Fart."

China has banned 120 songs from the Internet after deeming them “harmful” to society.

[...]

The offending titles – all Chinese songs – included “No Money No Friend,” “Don’t Want To Go To School,” and “One Night Stand.”

A popular MC Hotdog song, which includes the line ‘I don’t love Chinese women, I love Taiwanese girls’ was blacklisted, as was a song named “Fart” that included the lyrics: “There are some people in the world who like farting while doing nothing.”

As "Fart" goes, so goes the great nation. The new crackdown shifts culpability to karaoke content providers and away from venue operators. Given the expansive nature of some of these collections (upwards of 100,000 songs), the government felt it more appropriate to fine/jail/beat into submission those holding the songbooks, rather than those hosting the songbook-holders.

Incredibly ironically, the expanded ban targets songs that "incite ethnic hatred." As has been reported multiple times, ethnic hatred is one of the things the Chinese government is really good at, so it seems somewhat self-defeating to discourage people from celebrating one of the government's mainstays: the repeated oppression of its own citizens because of their religious beliefs.

Then there's this, which would be completely comical if it weren't coming from a government that defines the phrase "abuse of power."

A central song list would be created by the ministry for karaoke venues…

It almost sounds like a fun job! The sort of job someone could do in five hours a week while collecting a 40-hour paycheck, troubled only by the occasional "investigative" trip to the local karaoke bar.

If nothing else, the new ban list will provide a bump for artists whose songs have been officially ostracized. Nothing calls attention to "unapproved" music like a list of unapproved songs for citizens to hunt down, listen to, and perhaps belt out into the nearest microphone.

Filed Under: bans, censorship, china, free speech, karaoke

Daily Deal: The 2021 All-in-One Computer Science Bundle

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The 2021 All-in-One Computer Science Bundle has 11 courses to teach you the essentials of computer science. You'll learn about Java, C++, Ruby on Rails, Python, and more. It's on sale for $35.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

OnlyPrudes: OnlyFans, The Platform For Sexually Explicit Content, Says No More Sexually Explicit Content (Except For Nudes)

from the none-of-this-makes-sense dept

To some extent, it was only a matter of time until this issue came up. OnlyFans has grown massively over the last year (demonstrating, yet again, that the idea that the internet ecosystem is "settled" and that Facebook/Google control all is not necessarily true). However, as most people know, OnlyFans' success is built on basically creating a paywall for adult content from fans willing to subscribe to certain individuals in order to gain access to paid-only pictures and videos. It has had a tremendous impact especially for sex workers who had their careers shattered by FOSTA a few years ago, which forced a bunch of platforms sex workers relied on to shut down.

But, because it involves sex and adult content, sooner or later people were going to complain. And, complain they did. On Thursday OnlyFans announced that it was banning "sexually explicit" content, though it said it's still allowing nudity.

Effective October 1, 2021, OnlyFans will prohibit the posting of any content containing sexually explicit conduct. In order to ensure the long-term sustainability of the platform, and to continue to host an inclusive community of creators and fans, we must evolve our content guidelines. Creators will continue to be allowed to post content containing nudity as long as it is consistent with our Acceptable Use Policy.

What does that even mean? It's extremely unclear. The "Acceptable Use Policy" doesn't seem to define any difference between sexually explicit and nude content. Instead, it focuses on having the rights to the content you're posting and not posting illegal content. I can't wait for the content moderation case study exploring how OnlyFans distinguishes merely "nude" with "sexually explicit." That'll be a fun one.

Of course, there's a lot likely happening behind the scenes here. Just two days earlier OnlyFans announced a separate app of non-adult content, while simultaneously noting that it was having difficulty finding investors, despite its overwhelming success.

It wouldn't be a surprise for it to eventually come out that part of the issue is... FOSTA. The same law that created such a mess for sex workers since it was passed was likely always a potential risk for OnlyFans. The company is saying that many of its partners -- especially in the financial world -- were getting cold feet. According to Bloomberg, who broke the news:

The changes are needed because of mounting pressure from banking partners and payment providers, according to the company.

And, this shouldn't be much of a surprise. Remember, payment and banking partners have long been a target for government officials when they want to crack down on things they don't like -- especially sex related things.

Sex workers are already speaking out about this. Cathy Reisenwitz, from Sex and the State put out a statement:

​​OnlyFans was the most empowering way for adult creators to connect with our audience. I’ve benefited tremendously from OF personally. But at the end of the day I’ll be fine. I can’t say that about sex workers who depended on OF. Many of them are going to have to turn to in-person sex work, made all the more dangerous by SESTA/FOSTA, to make ends meet. I’m angry our deeply sex-negative, whorephobic society allows lying evangelicals and SWERFs to dictate the limits of our freedom of speech and put sex workers’ lives and livelihoods in jeopardy for no benefit to anyone. Every problem, from CSAM to trafficking, that banning porn is supposed to solve is actually exacerbated by stigmatizing and criminalizing online porn.

There are many reasons why some of us think we should be moving to a world where the internet has fewer chokepoints where policymakers and moral panic purveyors can put pressure on just a small handful of companies to choke off speech. Yes, obviously, OnlyFans has every right to decide how it wants to manage its own platform, but the key point here is that this doesn't seem to be OnlyFans doing this because it thinks it's best for the site, or for its users (either creators or fans). Rather, it's because of the intermediaries stepping in to tell them what is and what is not allowed.

Filed Under: adult content, financial services, sex workers, sexually explicit content, subscription services
Companies: onlyfans

Google Has Been Paying Wireless Carriers Billions To Not Develop Competing App Stores

from the not-so-innovative-I-guess dept

To be clear, wireless carrier app stores have always kind of sucked. Verizon's efforts to create its own app store were shut down in 2012, after underwhelming consumers for years. At the time, the narrative was that Verizon just didn't find it worth the trouble in the face of Google domination and innovation. And while that's still largely true (wireless carriers are utterly unfamiliar with competition and therefore historically suck at innovation and adaptation), it turns out there was another reason.

Namely, that Google was paying Verizon and other major wireless companies a big chunk of money to not compete with the Android marketplace. And they were paying smartphone manufacturers to ship devices without competing app stores installed. Both nuggets were buried in a freshly unredacted copy of Epic's antitrust complaint (pdf) against Google, first spotted by Jeremy Owens:

This agreement to start paying wireless carriers 20-25% of app sales was occurring right around the time that Google brass was visibly starting to wimp out on consumer-centric issues like net neutrality. That involved working closely with Verizon to push the FCC toward flimsy, loophole-filled, "compromise" 2010 net neutrality rules that excluded wireless entirely. Verizon proceeded to then successfully sue the FCC to have those repealed anyway, leading to better rules in 2015 that were also dismantled a few years, later, albeit thanks to lobbying, not the courtroom.

Google's shift from hugely innovative disruptor to entrenched, elbow-swinging turf protector has been a fairly ugly and historically unsurprising transition. You can clearly see the line in the sand somewhere around 2010 to throw away many of the guiding principles that made them successful and popular. There was another executive leadership pivot sometime around 2016 that brought with it increased timidity at the company (see: the company's abrupt decision to largely give up on expanding Google Fiber and many other exciting moonshot projects). Then, more recently there's the whole AI ethics scandals, which speaks for itself.

To be clear Google still does a lot of interesting and popular stuff, but it's pretty damn clear that the ethics and bravery that guided the company originally were obliterated some time back.

I have to think that revelations Google was paying wireless carriers and smartphone manufacturers to not compete with it will likely fuel several different antitrust inquiries and court cases. Maybe wireless carriers would have always failed to develop compelling app stores of their own thanks to innate incompetence, but it's harder than ever for that to happen when Google is paying you billions of dollars to not even try. And then, should those competing app stores succeed, paying handset makers not to carry them anyway, even if they happen to become popular.

As a little side note, the fact Google has been paying wireless carriers billions of dollars to do nothing kind of puts an additional dent in FCC Commissioner's ongoing, dumb claim that "big tech" gets a "free ride" on telecom networks. Getting paid to do nothing is the exact kind of thing AT&T has been pushing for since 2003 or so. It's the kind of stupid demand that started the net neutrality debate. Whether the payoffs violated the law is for antitrust lawyers to decide, but the fact Google repeatedly thought nothing about ignoring its original founding principles continues to speak pretty loudly either way.

Filed Under: android, app stores, competition, fees, mobile app stores, mobile operators
Companies: google, verizon