discussion The Moral Degeneracy of NSFW Creators Gooner-Baiting in SFW Social Media sites

[yukiea]

Now, it is probably bait in itself to put the word moral in this site, but one of the threads I want to post this stopped allowing responses, so I'm making one. I made a poll, but humbly request my acquaintances who want to respond read this before replying/answering in the poll. Moral here has no judgemental meeting, but is useful in context to the impact that the statement is making.
Freedom is important, anonymity due to the potential infringement of our freedom is more important. So, I hold no stance as to if any larger body or social media sites should ban consenting adults from doing things in their own time or post them on the internet. What I have an issue with is OF models going on social media sites like Tik*ok (which curates what you see) and Inst**ram, which is 100% gooner bait and pushing their users with barely SFW or downright NSFW content so that they'll spend on OF. This is apparently quite prevalent, and effective.
What would be the optimal condition? I don't know, I don't want to just ban things I dont like, seeing as well theres no measurable and quantitative impact to society (though it seems to be overall negative). However, I would prefer if NSFW is segregated more from SFW sites but both are equally and easily accessible. Rules could be in place where NSFW creators can't mention NSFW paid subs on their SFW sites.
Want to know what you all think.

 

[Redyscom]

There are many pros and cons...

On the one hand, it's nothing more than propaganda to get the platform's users noticed; that's their way of making money, and there's nothing wrong with that.

On the other hand, SFW platforms shouldn't have that type of content, even if it's not naked people and just provocative poses; it's not the place.

I suppose if it's on pages that are truly 100% SFW, it should be banned. Social media, which is where they usually promote themselves, isn't exactly a SFW place.

 

[i_patchy]

Im in general against any kind of prostitution and "live action" porn, be it a studio, amateur, OF or camming. So my reply is always yes, for cases like that.

 

[AlBetGam]

Yeah, I'm not sure what there is to care about here beyond just not wanting kids to run across porn. Presumably OnlyFans advertisements should just fall under whatever rules the platform in question has for NSFW content.

 

[HuiEtyud]

The ironic thing is that OnlyFans wasn't *meant* to be...what it is. Remember when they banned NSFW? The site cratered and almost went bankrupt and re-allowed it after, what, a month? It reminds me of when Tumblr banned porn and lost 90% of its users.

I think NSFW and SFW should remain as separate as possible. If >17 is allowed on the platform, 18+ should not have access.

But, I know that the world doesn't work how I believe it should, therefore if I have a problem with it, I just don't use it. And, more importantly, I don't allow my child (who is 13 next month) to use it. Parent your children. It's not the responsibility of Twitter to do it.

 

[WhiteVanDaycare]

Yeah, I'm not sure what there is to care about here beyond just not wanting kids to run across porn. Presumably OnlyFans advertisements should just fall under whatever rules the platform in question has for NSFW content.

The problem is the nanny state wanting to be the one to decide what is or is not appropriate and censor the internet in the name of 'keeping children safe'. The internet is not meant to be safe for children, it is the parents responsibility and not the state to determine what children have access to.

 

[AlBetGam]

The problem is the nanny state wanting to be the one to decide what is or is not appropriate and censor the internet in the name of 'keeping children safe'. The internet is not meant to be safe for children, it is the parents responsibility and not the state to determine what children have access to.

So far as I'm aware the nanny state isn't getting involved here; I haven't heard anything about the government forcing OnlyFans models to stop advertising. The point of my comment is that them doing so is a matter between them and the platform they're advertising on.

 

[Petermax77]

The very fact you use a word created by white liberal women that hates men means are a baiter that wants to censor everything too.

 

[yukiea]

So far it seems like consensus is to ban it, by a good margin which is surprising.

There are many pros and cons...

On the one hand, it's nothing more than propaganda to get the platform's users noticed; that's their way of making money, and there's nothing wrong with that.

On the other hand, SFW platforms shouldn't have that type of content, even if it's not naked people and just provocative poses; it's not the place.

I suppose if it's on pages that are truly 100% SFW, it should be banned. Social media, which is where they usually promote themselves, isn't exactly a SFW place.

Yes, I'm not so sure about banning it, and banning it could be a net positive, but the future impacts of doing so may be unknown (like current payment processors banning shit, it came from a pretty rational place).

Im in general against any kind of prostitution and "live action" porn, be it a studio, amateur, OF or camming. So my reply is always yes, for cases like that.

Ok, I guess that's one solid prespective

Yeah, I'm not sure what there is to care about here beyond just not wanting kids to run across porn. Presumably OnlyFans advertisements should just fall under whatever rules the platform in question has for NSFW content.

Actually, given I'm a late Genz guy, I dont think I'd mind kids coming across it (at least ones who are more mature), and there are already good ways to control during their most sensitive phases if parents are educated. My argument is more the suggestion of NSFW content if you just go away from the SFW posts. It's a slippery slope I know, which is why I want to run a poll.

 

[yukiea]

The ironic thing is that OnlyFans wasn't *meant* to be...what it is. Remember when they banned NSFW? The site cratered and almost went bankrupt and re-allowed it after, what, a month? It reminds me of when Tumblr banned porn and lost 90% of its users.

I think NSFW and SFW should remain as separate as possible. If >17 is allowed on the platform, 18+ should not have access.

But, I know that the world doesn't work how I believe it should, therefore if I have a problem with it, I just don't use it. And, more importantly, I don't allow my child (who is 13 next month) to use it. Parent your children. It's not the responsibility of Twitter to do it.

Yeah that's fair, seperate but accessible, at some point we gotta just believe in the future generation while keeping managing the risks. Honest conversations are more important than trying to run a cabal

 

[yukiea]

The very fact you use a word created by white liberal women that hates men means are a baiter that wants to censor everything too.

Gate keeping words?! Ok boomer

 

[WhiteVanDaycare]

So far as I'm aware the nanny state isn't getting involved here; I haven't heard anything about the government forcing OnlyFans models to stop advertising. The point of my comment is that them doing so is a matter between them and the platform they're advertising on.

Because what is being proposed is 'child proofing' what OP believes are SFW sites. There aught to be a law generally leads to laws (and not good ones )

 

[yukiea]

Because what is being proposed is 'child proofing' what OP believes are SFW sites. There aught to be a law generally leads to laws (and not good ones )

no no, the current social media platform are certainly not SFW, but it does have stronger rules. Gooner bait is just not in those rules, thus suggestive (at times outright NSFW) are allowed. Child proofing is not really the aim, its more to make SFW less degenerate. We can be degenerate in NSFW sites, but why bring that to SFW sites, regardless of age.

 

[HuiEtyud]

The very fact you use a word created by white liberal women that hates men means are a baiter that wants to censor everything too.

Not at all. I, for one, have no problem calling myself a gooner.

You must be registered to see attachments

 

[mercury.games]

I don't know how you could reasonably police something this sort of thing. Sure, onlyfans is the biggest and most obvious thing to block right now, but where do you draw the line? Real porn actresses social media accounts? Girls who prostitute themselves privately for exotic trips? Models that have ever taken risque photos? Actresses that have ever had a boob out in an R-rated film? Anyone in a bikini because you can't be sure it isn't somehow advertising something somehow?

Social media as people use it (always advertising something, including their idealized version of themselves) is the real disease, and trying to block "moral degeneracy" is putting a band-aid on a gaping wound.

 

[yukiea]

I don't know how you could reasonably police something this sort of thing. Sure, onlyfans is the biggest and most obvious thing to block right now, but where do you draw the line? Real porn actresses social media accounts? Girls who prostitute themselves privately for exotic trips? Models that have ever taken risque photos? Actresses that have ever had a boob out in an R-rated film? Anyone in a bikini because you can't be sure it isn't somehow advertising something somehow?

Social media as people use it is the real disease, and trying to block "moral degeneracy" is putting a band-aid on a gaping wound.

Reasonably is the key word there. SFW social media sites can fully ban linking or even inferring that an only fans exit in any content, their content scrapers can easily do this today. Banning people who abuse the system. Real porn actresses saying they are porn actress is fine but 'go to br*zze*s.c*m to see the real me' is banned. Prostitute privately off us is ok because it's off platform and by definition is private and people who read her posts need to be in the know to understand the 'dog whistle'. risque photos are fine if its isolated to the individual social media (then will be curated by themselves). Boob out in an R Rated film, is fine as it's not generally a pornographic context. Advertising needs to be explicit (as if you are a buisness owner, like an OF or porn actress), developed market rules require you to be explicit in advertising. If they are subtle, they can get their main site in trouble.

I dont know if I should have answered all of your scenarios like this since it seems like you've thought about it a lot and I'm just appearing to dismiss it, but you can do it. It's just should they do it and should we want them to do it.

The use of social media as it is right now is also out of scope, but I cant help but think that at least we'll be blocking the artery further blood loss than a bandade on a gaping wound.

 

[WhiteVanDaycare]

I don't know how you could reasonably police something this sort of thing. Sure, onlyfans is the biggest and most obvious thing to block right now, but where do you draw the line? Real porn actresses social media accounts? Girls who prostitute themselves privately for exotic trips? Models that have ever taken risque photos? Actresses that have ever had a boob out in an R-rated film? Anyone in a bikini because you can't be sure it isn't somehow advertising something somehow?

Social media as people use it (always advertising something, including their idealized version of themselves) is the real disease, and trying to block "moral degeneracy" is putting a band-aid on a gaping wound.

I wish I could give you bigger thumbs up for this comment, so here goes:

You must be registered to see attachments

Slippery slope and it's all fine until they cross 'my line'.

 

[mercury.games]

Reasonably is the key word there. SFW social media sites can fully ban linking or even inferring that an only fans exit in any content, their content scrapers can easily do this today. Banning people who abuse the system. Real porn actresses saying they are porn actress is fine but 'go to br*zze*s.c*m to see the real me' is banned. Prostitute privately off us is ok because it's off platform and by definition is private and people who read her posts need to be in the know to understand the 'dog whistle'. risque photos are fine if its isolated to the individual social media (then will be curated by themselves). Boob out in an R Rated film, is fine as it's not generally a pornographic context. Advertising needs to be explicit (as if you are a buisness owner, like an OF or porn actress), developed market rules require you to be explicit in advertising. If they are subtle, they can get their main site in trouble.

I dont know if I should have answered all of your scenarios like this since it seems like you've thought about it a lot and I'm just appearing to dismiss it, but you can do it. It's just should they do it and should we want them to do it.

The use of social media as it is right now is also out of scope, but I cant help but think that at least we'll be blocking the artery further blood loss than a bandade on a gaping wound.

I was giving scenarios by (vaguely) in my head most to least reasonable (and possible) to block. The porn actress is an interesting one to think about actually as there's all sorts of stuff that could be allowed or forbidden. "Just filmed a scene", probably ok. "I just filmed a scene with Brazzers", not? I mean, it's a fact. You could figure it out by googling them, going to iafdb, whatever. "Check out these hot shots of my latest scene you can get if you go to brazzers.com/slutty-mc-slutface", certainly not.

What else is a clear harm to society? Fast food. Global warming (eventually). AI. Megacorporations. Fascism. Forcing you to identify yourself to use basically everything on the internet. (In no particular order)

To me gooner baiting on social media seems pretty low on the priority list, as long as it's reasonably opt-in. You wanna look a sluts dancing sexy on tik tok? It's all gooner bait. Get over it. If you don't want to see it block the creator and move on. It's what I do, except on my goon accounts.

 

[HuiEtyud]

Real porn actresses saying they are porn actress is fine but 'go to br*zze*s.c*m to see the real me' is banned.

I have *zero* problem with porn stars having a Twitter account. [I think] it should be nothing but a personal page, and not for promotion of commercial products, such as their AVs. That's literally what the publisher is for.

I think one of the biggest issues we've come across is the mixing of personal and business aspects of our lives, and we either don't know how or just refuse to split the two apart. I kind of miss the days when you didn't know *every* aspect of *everyone's* lives.

 

[mercury.games]

In all honesty I am kind-of OK with the idea of keeping children off of most of the web. None of this "child safe" bullshit sections of social media, fucking up YouTube videos because some AI decides Happy Tree Friends is "made for kids" because it's animated. We need fundamentally different platforms with different ethos behind them. A PBS to the current Cartoon Network (that happens to switch over to Adult Swim at 10pm because certainly no child could possibly stay up that late).

It's the practice of how we could possibly do any of that I have a problem with, so I am fully willing to throw that baby out with the bathwater.

I have *zero* problem with porn stars having a Twitter account. [I think] it should be nothing but a personal page, and not for promotion of commercial products, such as their AVs. That's literally what the publisher is for.

I think one of the biggest issues we've come across is the mixing of personal and business aspects of our lives, and we either don't know how or just refuse to split the two apart. I kind of miss the days when you didn't know *every* aspect of *everyone's* lives.

That is some of what I was getting at in my first message by saying "Social media as people use it (always advertising something, including their idealized version of themselves) is the real disease, and trying to block "moral degeneracy" is putting a band-aid on a gaping wound.".

Advertising is the root of so much evil. The absolutely pitiful price platforms place on my eyeballs is appalling. Or maybe it's just capitalism that's the problem. Haha.