Considering i have never heard of this, i will assume its right.
I’m more surprised that Advice Animals is still a thing when it’s almost 2025.
(Unlike Barbie, which is a timeless classic.)
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!
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.
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.
Why would reddit be implicated?
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.
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.
I guess there’s a lot of advertising done on the NSFW subreddits.
At least a third are self-promoting their OF. Not dissimilar to Lemmy nsfw
They don’t make you sign some mile-long terms and conditions that clarifies the situation in fine print?
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.
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.
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.
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.
For that post we need something like !AdviceAnimals on Lemmy
