zlacker

>>mef+(OP)
It does seem like the business preys on, primarily teenage boys, in a way that traditional pornography does not.

If you look up the user demographics, you'll notice an obvious problem: The demographics do not include the number of users under 18.

https://techreport.com/statistics/software-web/onlyfans-stat...

Some may say: well that's because you have to be 18 to use the site. But that's not true. Anyone can signup for onlyfans without entering their age. Onlyfans only does age verification for creators.

If you think this site isn't primarily being used by teenagers, then I have a bridge to sell you.

>>rybosw+Wgc
Interesting. I wouldn't have guessed teens would have the money. I'd have guessed the cash cows would be adult, well-employed.

But if it's a common scenario for an adult OF creator to be sexually interacting with an underage teenager online (and, really, "grooming" them), are we going to start seeing life-ruining prosecutions of creators?

Incidentally including subpoenas of lists of creators and consumers, for additional chilling effect on both?

If so, could that kill OF's business, at least for Western creators, as well as for some consumers?

And if OF ends up with creators mostly in non-Western countries, with a reputation for preying upon UK/US/etc. teens (and maybe even reports of human trafficking, and/or funding sanctioned parties), will OF be banned in many Western countries? Maybe the most lucrative ones?

Separate from serious questions about what's ethical and healthy for everyone, given that the topic is OF's economics, I wonder whether they're making so much money because they're too close to the line of what's legally sustainable.