What you need to know
- OnlyFans will no longer allow sexually explicit content on the site starting in October.
- The website is trying to position itself as a place for content creators.
- The transition follows a similar move made by Tumblr in 2018, which was widely unpopular.
Popular content subscription service OnlyFans has announced (via Bloomberg) that it will no longer allow sexually explicit content on the website as of October 1.
The move has surprised many as the website, known for its sexually explicit content, has seen a surge in popularity following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
While we've reached out for additional details, Bloomberg reports that the move was ignited by pressure from baking institutions as the site seeks investor funding to attain a $1 billion valuation.
OnlyFans has stated that the site will still allow nudity so long as it complies with the site's guidelines, meaning public nudity can't be shot or recorded in areas where it is prohibited. The site will share more about this change in the coming days, however, the decision is unlikely to be embraced by its users, particularly by those who have made a living off of OnlyFans.
Competing site JustForFans has posted a response in the wake of the news, expressing disappointment in companies "cutting their teeth on the adult market and then abandoning them once they reach critical mass." The site criticizes OnlyFans for "mainstreaming" and abandoning its users, which helped it attain a reported $2 billion in revenue last year alone.
The move comes after the site pushed its OFTV app for the best streaming devices, which doesn't feature any of the sexually explicit content that the site is popular for and is being pushed to promote content creators like cooks, fitness instructors, and photographers. The app launch signaled that the company was looking to change its image.
In 2018, Tumblr made a similar move to prohibit sexually explicit content after the app was banned from the Apple app store. That also drew tons of criticism, particularly from sex workers and the LGBT community, who considered it a safe space for their content.
Derrek is a long-time Nokia and LG fanboy who loves astronomy, videography, and sci-fi movies. When he's not working, he's most likely working out or smoldering at the camera.
So, they're committing suicide? That said, calling them an "adult content subscription service" seems a bit unfair. And inaccurate.
Keep in the forefront of your mind, if it was not for sex you would not be here, nor would your children.
Damn, you're right.
Yes, but was that sex monetized and broadcast on the internet for lonely people to get off to? (I have no horse in this race, but I also don't quite get your point, Ranger)
ugh. the point is that this puritanical grand standing has no place in the years 2000 and beyond. so maybe realize only fans is for "adult" content, and there's nothing wrong with that. your nieces and nephews might have been conceived after their parents watched some onlyfans.
They'll end up going under. This won't turn out well for them.
Pressure from baking institutions, eh? Get those oven mitts ready!
lol way to suicide.
This has been part of a trend where some organizations who invoke and/or operate under the banner children's righs advocacy have started applying pressure to companies like Visa, MasterCard, PayPal etc, in order to avoid a direct assault on the actual sites like OnlyFans and others. They accuse the sites of hosting either members who are underage or streaming material depicting individuals who are underage engaged in what under the law would qualify as criminal acts, child pornography, under age sex, sexual abuse etc. Let's make this clear, all those acts are most definitely illegal and should they be found to be real/actual, then any company or individual aiding and abetting something like that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and punished accordingly. However in many cases a lot of these "advocates" turn out to be the same anti-pornography, religious, socially conservative crusaders of old. The same people who back in the day went after Playboy, Hustler and the like. However they've adapted with the times. Same mission, same goals (censorship, outright bans etc.), but different tactics and approaches. Because in the past, think the Reagan years, the Moral Majority, Family Research Council, Catholic League etc., (Jerry Falwell and co. types) a lot of these organizations failed or were only partially successful in their missions, (remember "The People Vs. Larry Flint...not the movie...but the actual case) in going after creators and providers of adult oriented materials, they found a indirect but way more efficient method to try and achieve the same goals. Under different veneers and facades, oftentimes like the aforementioned one of "children's righs advocates", they established and funded proxy organizations and agencies with officially sounding names and mission statements and instead of let's say going after OnlyFans, they are going after their ability to monetize their content or perform any financial transactions, thus targetting banks and other financial institutions, who are more likely to cave in to public pressure, bad publicity and boycotts. I mean who would want to be associated with anything having to do with the abuse and exploitation of children and other vulnerable individuals? If one thinks about it, it's an actually clever tactic. The clearest example of this was what happened to PornHub last year. Not too different from what is going on with OnlyFans now. Whatever or however one feels about adult content, the adult industry in general and the people involved in all of it, is a personal matter, belief or view. To each their own. But what should be concerning is the censorship angle the encroachment on freedom of speech, freedom of expression and other civil liberties which sooner or later will affect all of us directly of indirectly.
Get the best of Android Central in in your inbox, every day!
Thank you for signing up to Android Central. You will receive a verification email shortly.
There was a problem. Please refresh the page and try again.