For those that don't know, OnlyFans is a website that lets creators host their own-generated content, in the form of videos, images and real-time performances. Some of the content is paywalled, and fans of a creator can access the content by paying a monthly subscription or one-time payment.
On 19 Aug 2021, OnlyFans said it would ban porn form its site. This was puzzling since the vast majority of the content on its site is porn. It transpired that this move was forced on OnlyFans by payment processors Visa and Mastercard:
OnlyFans said the ban, which will come into effect in October, followed pressure from banks and payment processors who raised concerns about the material it hosts. Rather than lose its ability to take payments, which would effectively kill the business altogether, OnlyFans has instead chosen to ban the adult material that made its name.
A week later, OnlyFans reversed this decision; porn will not be banned on the site after all:
Last week, OnlyFans said it would ban adult material from 1 October, to the dismay of its users and creators, who argued that doing so risked driving such work underground.
Those plans have been scrapped, the company said in a tweet. “Thank you to everyone for making your voices heard. We have secured assurances necessary to support our diverse creator community and have suspended the planned October 1 policy change. OnlyFans stands for inclusion and we will continue to provide a home for all creators.”
Redditor u/LoreSnacks speculated that this reversal came about because of public outcry:
I'm surprised no one has brought up the possibility that the payment processors folded to public pressure. I saw a decent number of normie Twitter accounts that are sort of left but not really political or pornographic retweeting stuff about this, some also alleging the payment processors caved to pressure from a fundamentalist Christian group.
There's already a nucleus of concern about the power payment processors wield among Republicans, if any substantial number of Democrats get angry at them too it could cause some headaches.
I think this may well be the truth: that while some fraction of the public wants OnlyFans banned, greater fractions (and factions) of the public don't want it banned. The banking industry is powerful, but not infinitely so. If they piss off too many people, it won't go well for them.
This saga raises two questions:
(1) Should OnlyFans be shut down?
and (2) who should decide whether OnlyFans is shut down?
Should OnlyFans be shut down?
I feel conflicted on this.
Popular blogger Scott Alexander once said of Las Vegas that it promises people free money and then doesn't give it to them. I kinda feel the same about OnlyFans: it promises people intimacy, and then doesn't give it to them. (When I say OnlyFans "promises people intimacy" I mean it creates a parasocial relationship between creators and fans).
On the other hand, OnlyFans' service doesn't involve coercion: OnlyFans doesn't force anyone to interact with their site. Therefore if it is profitable, it must be because some people's revealed preferences are to use its services -- either as creators or consumers. Who am I to tell these people -- who I've never met and don't know -- that I know what is good for them better than they do themselves? I feel some epistemic humility is in order here. Far too often, in my opinion, governments take the attitude that they know best, that they should tell everyone what to do.
Who should decide whether OnlyFans is shut down?
This, I think, is a more important question. It's also a far easier question to answer.
OnlyFans is a British company and the only people who should have the right to shut it down are a democratically elected British government. The most important issue is simply: should Britain be ruled by the British people, or should Britain be ruled by the secretive and unaccountable international financial services industry acting in the shadows?
If Visa and Mastercard think that power should belong to them, then they are usurping power from where it rightfully belongs and have made themselves enemies of the British people.
I have covered in the past about how foreign corporations have too much power. For example in Software is eating the world I said:
Computers run software. Control that software, or better still control the hardware the computer runs on, and you control the computer system; you have a good deal of actual control over the humans using it. And much of the computing and communications systems used by British people are controlled by foreign corporations and states.
And in Google censors TalkRADIO I pointed out how an industry often coalesces around a small number of dominant players who accordingly have enormous power:
YouTube [is] a dominant [platform] owned by a trillion-dollar company, Google. And because of network effects, people cannot simply create their own platform to compete with YouTube, as it would get nowhere.
[...] Once Google et al control who is allowed to get a platform, they decide which points of view will be heard and which politicians can get elected. Once they do that, a country is no longer a democracy, it is an oligarchy controlled by Google.
Just as social media is an important platform that gives great power to those who control it, so are payment processors. And again, there are a small number of dominant players, and it's impossible for anyone who isn't a billionaire to set up a payment processor, because of regulations (controlled by the dominant players, of course, via regulatory capture) and network effects.
Consequently, the UK government should require Visa and Mastercard to admit that what they attempted to do was wrong and promise not to do it again. If they refuse, the UK government should take whatever measures are necessary to strip them of their power. These measures may include setting up our own UK-based payment processor, and requiring all businesses based in the UK to interoperate with them.
Westminster delenda est
The Roman statesman Marcus Porcius Cato ended every speech, on any subject, with "Carthage must be destroyed" (Carthago delenda est).
I feel a bit like that about Westminster. It seems to me obvious that The UK government in Westminster shouldn't let foreign payment processors such as Visa and Mastercard usurp power from Britain. It seems equally obvious that the Westminster ruling class isn't going to do the right thing, on this or a million and one other issues.
Consequently I conclude that Scotland must become independent and rule itself. Independent Scotland probably won't do what I consider to be obviously right on every issue, but I'm sure it will do better than Westminster has. It's probable that a Scotland newly independent from Westminster won't want to be subservient to big foreign corporations either.