• Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    I have no idea about anything happening with OnlyFans, but if they’re getting sued then I fully support whoever is taking that cancer to the courts.

    Edit: So apparently the lawsuit revolves around customers chatting with paid agents instead of the actual girls themselves. If you didn’t see that coming from a mile away, I’ve got a phenomenal selection of bridges you may be interested in!

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      4 days ago

      Whether anyone judges what should be obvious or not, false advertising is still illegal. I don’t give a flying fuck if someone shouldn’t have believed it, fuck liars.

      • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        48
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        Just a wild guess, but based on all the predatory accounts on there trying to lure you to onlyfans, I’m guessing they’re saying Reddit is complicit. Like, they probably DM you on Reddit and then tell you to go to OF to continue the conversation. So, there is some idea that you’re really talking to someone.

        In general, the whole thing is funny to me. Like, come on folks, have some respect for yourselves. Don’t pay for a para-social relationship.

        • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 days ago

          Interesting question anyways, if you’re a platform that can freely be used for these chats, and you don’t actively forbid it (and enforce this) then are you really not complicit?

          From a legal perspective depending on the country, I could see someone implicate you as a middle man or broker for scams.

    • jqubed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 days ago

      Is this a result of that article from earlier this year where a reporter tried infiltrating the ranks as one of the (poorly) paid agents? That was a fascinating read; some people are apparently paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars as a result of these conversations, frequently that aren’t even with the model they think they’re chatting with.

    • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 days ago

      They don’t make you sign some mile-long terms and conditions that clarifies the situation in fine print?

      • Bgugi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        5 days ago

        In the US at least, fine print isn’t a free-for-all. There’s still a lot of liability for the expectations of a “reasonable consumer.”

        Unless a company is big and connected enough to make those protections disappear.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      Edit: So apparently the lawsuit revolves around customers chatting with paid agents instead of the actual girls themselves. If you didn’t see that coming from a mile away, I’ve got a phenomenal selection of bridges you may be interested in!

      Yeah that’s like… no shit, really? Some dickcheese bought into onlyfans thinking they’ll get to always chat to the actual girl? Is that setup not trivially the first thing you’d consider when thinking how you’d get rich off of OnlyFans, too? I need to meet more of these people IRL, like you say I got some bridges to sell them.

      • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 days ago

        This is hardly a new business model. In the olden days there were 900 numbers for this. Commercial shows hot sexy women. Actual person on the line was not.

        I’m guessing the difference here is lack of disclosure.

        • dubyakay@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          Except there at least it was a woman doing the sexy talk. Even if it was a mom in her 40s looking for some extra casht.

  • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 days ago

    I’m more surprised that Advice Animals is still a thing when it’s almost 2025.

    (Unlike Barbie, which is a timeless classic.)