Re:Ask HN: How does onlyfans.com work around the “no porn” S...
by dotBen on Thursday August 27, 2020 @05:46PM
(#24299056)
"I have no skin in this game"
<golf clap>
Re:Ask HN: How does onlyfans.com work around the “no porn” S...
by behringer on Thursday August 27, 2020 @10:25PM
(#24300812)
I know exactly how this happens because I have to deal with this all the time. Here's my guess:
The boss ten years ago now dead said if it looks like a penis and is the right color of a penis then we can't sell it. Therefore, you gotta change the color. - Wells Fargo, probably.
Re:Ask HN: How does onlyfans.com work around the “no porn” S...
by CarbyAu on Thursday August 27, 2020 @07:49PM
(#24299992)
What I find weird is the thought process of:
- pretend to fuck a human? No. Don't want to encourage that.
- Fuck a unicorn/dragon/Dionysus? Sure, why not...
Who is conservative enough to want to discourage the one thing literally required for humanity to survive; and yet is OK with mythical creatures?!?
Re:Ask HN: How does onlyfans.com work around the “no porn” S...
by volkl48 on Thursday August 27, 2020 @10:48PM
(#24300912)
Usually there's overlap in those "designs" with the....appendages of common animals (even if not explicitly labeled as such).
Someone on a moralizing crusade would probably label the company as supporting bestiality.
Re:Ask HN: How does onlyfans.com work around the “no porn” S...
by goatinaboat on Friday August 28, 2020 @12:52AM
(#24301473)
What is the threat model, exactly? What eventuality is the bank seeking to avoid?
The threat is that someone in compliance or legal doesn’t have enough real work to do so has to do “something” to keep their cushy job.
What is the threat model, exactly? What eventuality is the bank seeking to avoid?
Are there edge-case regulatory issues at play? Are there moral-consumer groups out there that run public pressure campaigns against banks that transact on adult toys that look too realistic? Is a corporate lawyer somewhere worried about photos of a realistic-looking appendage used explicitly being tied back to the bank -- but if it's painted green they can plausibly argue "hey it's definitely not real, look it's green!"?
This just feels like such a spectacularly arbitrary line that I'm fascinated by the thought process.