In the past few weeks, the online sex worker community has been dealing with the aftermath of quiet policy changes made by the popular not safe for work (NSFW) website OnlyFans. These changes have subtly been the result of the millions made in profit by the former Disney actress Bella Thorne. More specifically, the policy changes were likely a result of mass requests for refunds when Thorne did not post fully-naked pictures as was expected by consumers. Many claimed Thorne “ruined” the platform by causing the site to enact these changes, but I would like to propose the possibility that the problem is with the platform itself.
The specific changes made by OnlyFans included a $50 cap on pay-per-view content, a $100 cap on one-time tip payments, and a monthly payout timeline as opposed to weekly. Many blasted Thorne on social media, blaming her for the changes to the website’s policies. Popular criticisms have included that she is a celebrity in a “sex worker space” and essentially used her celebrity status to gain income the site while non-celebrities have had to put in work to gain subscribers and income. The sudden changes to the website were especially harmful to those who utilize the platform for a full-time income and do not work outside of creating NSFW content.
However, I don’t personally believe Bella Thorne is to be blamed for the dramatic shift in site guidelines. Rather, I think the conversation needs to be reframed as how OnlyFans has failed the content creators that use the platform. I don’t think OnlyFans is a friend to sex workers or a neutral platform. OnlyFans actively profits from the NSFW content created and posted on the site. OnlyFans takes a 20% cut of revenue gained by content creators, whereas other popular subscription or item sales websites take much less from creators. For instance, the popular subscription platform Patreon takes a 5% cut of payments, the online clothing marketplace Depop takes a 10% cut of sales, and the popular craft sales site Etsy charges creators a $0.20 listing fee and a 5% transaction fee. The OnlyFans platform is not an ally to sex workers in any way and has zero interest in protecting sex workers. The site’s first and foremost interest is drawing a profit, not protecting the creators it draws profit from.
Most importantly, I think in light of this situation it is important to start a conversation around consent and entitlement in sex work, especially online sex work. Many claimed they were “scammed” when they didn’t receive fully-naked pictures of Bella Thorne. Despite Thorne posting on her social media that her content would not feature full nudity, many requested refunds because of the fact that the pictures were not what they thought. But is there any scenario where one is entitled to naked pictures? Does money override consent in these cases? In real life and without finances in the picture, it is generally well-understood that anybody can revoke consent for any reason. But how does that change when money is involved? Especially over the internet, is one entitled to access another’s body because they paid a monetary value? I think this question combined with OnlyFans’ prioritization of profit over the protection of its creators is the root of the situation.
Be First to Comment