News

What a shallow, panicked take. Listening to an "experienced child exploitation investigator," Reuters did a deep-dig at OnlyFans and found 26 accounts featuring females who "appeared" to be underage.

That's not my kink, but 26 ain't many, "appeared underage" is an incredibly low bar, OnlyFans requires proof of age, which all the pages in question had on file, and the site took the pages down immediately anyway. I'm not seeing how OnlyFans could be more rigorous about this, but Reuters should be. This is just anti-porn hysteria.

Underage looking?

Remember when some other group tried to ban women with small breasts?

I'm all for blocking csam but 'appears' and 'suspected' and 'characteristics' are not it.

A woman likes mickey mouse ears? Csam A woman has a flat chest ? Csam

"Even if every single one of them is verifiably 18 or older, you still have to confront the issue that OnlyFans is profiting from the sexual portrayal of women who appear to be underage."

I disagree. #NotMyJam & I don't subscribe to OnlyFans, but this guy comes across as a prude with massive hangups. I do think we should err on the side of caution and have a zero-tolerance policy on content that features or depicts underage subjects.

BUT. If 18 (in the US) is the law and the socially-agreed age of consent, that should be the end of it. You can't get mad at images of short, petite-framed women, or schoolgirl-kink images of verifiably legal age just because you don't like the content. I think OF uses AI to automatically flag potential CSAM for manual review as well as working with law enforcement and advocacy groups. While nothing is perfect and even a single sex-trafficked person is too many and the perpetrator should be brought to justice, I think that's a good system because it minimizes potential abuse. It's also one of the few good uses of AI because it limits those exposed to the material. But I don't think you can say OF chooses to profit off illegal material or enable it. And saying what legal material is allowed on someone else's platform is just puritanical.

26 accounts out of how many thousands? And they aren’t even claiming that most of them were really underage?

Sounds like the verification system is working pretty well to me.

Some of the accounts were linked to each other through promotional posts, suggesting they may have been controlled by the same person or group, Richardson said.

I was skeptical until I got here.

The images in the accounts featured females with physical attributes typical of those under the age of 18, Richardson said. Most had narrow hips and lacked physical maturation, he said. Many had narrow shoulders or appeared to be “well short of five feet tall,” he said.

But then this made me skeptical again. There was a porn actor named Kitty Yung (varied spelling, as far as I've seen). She looked undeveloped but she was an adult.

“Their appearance, wide-eyed, innocent look, the pouting, the finger in the mouth, all these are visual cues that convey childhood,” he said. “Even if every single one of them is verifiably 18 or older, you still have to confront the issue that OnlyFans is profiting from the sexual portrayal of women who appear to be underage.”

Ok, so women are wearing school girl outfits and posing as if they are school girls. That's on the content creators and it isn't unique to OnlyFans.

In recent months, Reuters separately examined non-explicit public profile photos, bios and posts of OnlyFans creators who shared near-identical promotional language in their posts. Access to the material was open to the public without a paid OnlyFans subscription.

Now I'm even more skeptical. I think people are likely to copy material from other accounts that appear to do well. "Nearly identical" doesn't sound like much to go on to me.