But are they making more money? Surely Tumblr made more before banning porn and OnlyFans wisely reconsidered before they sealed their doom.

Tumblr had an issue with pedos on the platform and was on the verge of getting kicked off the App Store. For some reason they decided banning porn in general was easier than just removing pedos.

Only Fans was about to be kicked off the banking system entirely and would have been ruined but the publicity caused the bank to back down so OF could continue as normal.

> or some reason they decided banning porn in general

Worth noting that the Tumblr "porn ban" was already well into the planning stages months before the AppStore kerfuffle. That just brought it forward, not into existence.

But it doesn't make money for them. No-one's actually losing consumer sales by allowing porn. It's all 50+ CEOs worrying about what other 50+ CEOs will think.

>But it doesn't make money for them. No-one's actually losing consumer sales by allowing porn.

Theory goes like this:

Some platform, be it payment or social allows something unacceptable to people, let's say racism, full nudity for the sake of argument.

People who really, really, do not want anyone to see this, start phone and email botting the companies that place ads using these networks, or take payment using these networks about the issue

The companies that place ads, do not need this headache and ask the platform, wtf? We will move our advertising dollars if you don't do something about this.

Platform, who's sole purpose in life is to make money, says ok!

Now, include very heavy hitters like Blackrock, Vandguard, etc. that control members on boards of 1,000s of companies and a relatively small group of people only need to persuade another relatively small group of people ... that may not even be the people running the platforms!

I think most consumer preference is against co-mingling porn and other content. Porn tends to drive away other content and makes things just kind of weird. Partially, I think, because porn is still one of the moneymakers on the internet so astroturfing/paid upvotes become lucrative and flood anyplace that allows sexual content.

>I think most consumer preference is against co-mingling porn and other content.

I agree, but even with that preference where does it stop? If I make my money via porn (I don't, but as an example) do customers not want to have bank accounts at banks where pornstars bank? How about sharing electricity from the same company that a porn company uses to power shoots? How about using that same kind of iPhone that a pornstar uses?

Of course all of those are absurd, but you get my point. There is clearly a line where commingling is acceptable. Reddit, for example, has some pretty hard NSFW content, yet people still place ads on other boards (or maybe those too, idk). And there is no widespread hue and cry from "consumers".

It is very, very specific people, companies, and groups that seem to be targeted and those tend to be whatever the current popular social-think flavor of the month is or just ones that certain people don't like in general (racism, drugs, bigots, etc). And you will note, that only one of those groups is actually illegal, the others are just distasteful.

> If I make my money via porn (I don't, but as an example) do customers not want to have bank accounts at banks where pornstars bank?

It can be quite difficult for sex workers of all stripes to maintain their bank accounts. They regularly have accounts frozen because they receive payments from porn-friendly payment processors. This is not just "porn stars" but people that do things like OnlyFans.

So yes, sex workers have trouble accessing banking even if all they do is show their titties on camera because prudes go pitch a fit to banks.

Do you want to know the real answer? It's game theory again.

In a world where no one allows smut (or drugs or semi-racist content), the first one who relaxes these rules will attract anyone and everyone with an interest in that particular content. And before you know it, smut is all you have.

It's a self reinforcing process, and the only way to stay out of it is to align with everyone else. The only way to break the process is if everyone relaxes the rules simultaneously.

Absolutely. You saw this in the early days of legalized gambling in the US.

And there was recently an editorial in the Chicago Tribune saying Chicago should shut down its remaining bars licensed to stay open till 4AM (most must close at 2, all get an extra hour on the weekends), because they're too wild. Yet NYC has probably hundreds of neighborhood bars open till 4 without a problem, since 4AM licenses are basically the default there.

Incorrect. It is about those companies living in fear that their ads will be displayed next to something an activist group doesn’t approve of

This. It's more about avoiding bad PR. And it doesn't have to be porn. It could be guns, vaping, violent movies, gambling, whatever.

If you're selling baby shampoo the last thing you need is some parent posting on Twitter about "Why is this baby shampoo brand advertising on a sight that promote horror movies about human centipedes?"

And they all think about the law, and how hard they will be impacted if it turns out there's too much non-consentual or illegal / underage content on their website.

Pornhub did a panic delete when the credit card companies withdrew because they realized three quarters of the content on their website may have been uploaded non-consentually - or at least, they didn't know there was consent involved. Revenge porn is a big issue, and will be even more now that everyone has an internet connected camera phone from a young age.

And this is the public internet; on top of that is the peer-to-peer internet of whatsapp, telegram etc, and the dark web of tor and co.

There are entire departments devoted to future problem solving. As a near monopoly multinational, are you more likely to be unseated by a competitor that approves of porn when you don't or by a competitor that prohibits porn when you allow it?

The former. Doing the embarrassing thing would be better for your company. But you're a near-monopoly anyway and unlikely to go bankrupt, so why make yourself uncomfortable?

Are you suggesting CEOs would let morals get in the way of making money?

Some sure, but most would likely say “if it’s legal and makes me money, it’s a go”.

It isn't really morals anyway. Not even those absurd morons would panic at the news "everybody is naked under their clothes, worse yet sex common among majority". Unlike say "majority torture small animals for recreation" or "majority are literally rapists". As usual the puritanism is so incredibly stupid on every level.

Regular-person morals? No, of course not. But the kind of morals that would affect their personal reputation among their social set? That they care quite a lot about.

Of course they are. There is a lot of money in family friendly entertainment. Take movies for example. On average, the more family friendly rating, the more popular. G rated movies are the most profitable while R rated movies are the least profitable.

Have you checked that assertion? Because it didn’t ring true to me based on what I remember (which was that PG-13 tends to be the sweet spot), and it doesn’t match the data I can find, e.g.:

https://stephenfollows.com/which-mpaa-rating-earns-the-most-...

PG-13 is far and away the leader in terms of both highest-grossing films and percentage of box office revenue; R-rated films are actually the second in terms of highest-grossing and, depending on the year, bounce around between second and third. G-rated films, by contrast, are at the bottom across the board.

There is a difference between “family entertainment” and “adults-only” which matters in terms of the discussion around Tumblr’s content. If we’re using MPAA ratings as an analogy, Tumblr’s “no porn” position isn’t “everything must be G-rated,” it’s “nothing can be NC-17.” One can argue about whether the latter is a good stance to take, but it’s important to be arguing about the actual restriction.

You could both ne right. G rated films generally use no-name or d-list actors and aren’t trying to impress for awards in almost any category. They tend to be low-budget/high-profit. If we are talking revenue, PG-13 for sure. Profit? I would put my money on G.

I'd bet lots of PG-13 movies earn more profit then a d-list G movie grosses

Not sure a lot of G rated Disney films could be considered low budget.

Disney has released something like 5 G-rated movies to the theaters (excepting nature films) in the past 15 years. PG is plenty family friendly enough.