Onlyfans fined £1.05m by Ofcom

[sparkus]

External Link/Members Only

The deep state on the offensive against Andrew Tate...

[scutty brown]

???
Nothing to do with Tate.
All to do with corporate business trying to bypass regulations

[RandomGuy99]

£1.05 milllion is nothing to OF.

OF made $6.6 billion ($6,600,000,000) last year or $18 million per day.

[RandomGuy99]

£1.05 milllion is nothing to OF.

OF made $6.6 billion ($6,600,000,000) last year or $18 million per day.

or 0.016% of my revenue.

[akauya]

External Link/Members Only

The deep state on the offensive against Andrew Tate...

WTF!

I didn't know Andrew Tate owned OF!

Is The Matrix on the offensive?

Is Deep Throat working for The Deep State?

How deep is The Deep State?

Are we doomed?

How will poor Lilly Phillips make her millions now?

Questions, questions.... 

[sparkus]

External Link/Members Only

[90125]

External Link/Members Only

It’s all about OF not having robust age checking measures in place.

[C-R-Tees]

External Link/Members Only

That's nothing to do with the OF fine. And the OF fine doesn't affect Tate in any way.

Gotta say, what they allegedly did according to that article does look a lot like money laundering. I

[myothernameis]

Surprised that no one has gone after Facebook, and there posts.  A lot has to be said, about the reels, and the content, and by the looks no ask what age is the person posting the reels, or some reels of kids with no clothes on

A lot of videos of babies seem to originate from India, or Pakistan, but reels of females in a state of undressing more likely to be nearer home.  Some of the reels I have seen on Facebook, of females in state of undressing, dont look 18, they look like 16 years old, but its very likely they are over 18

I know some of the reels with babies with no clothes have been reported to Facebook, and there reply this video does not break any community rule

[PepeMAGA]

Surprised that no one has gone after Facebook, and there posts.  A lot has to be said, about the reels, and the content, and by the looks no ask what age is the person posting the reels, or some reels of kids with no clothes on

A lot of videos of babies seem to originate from India, or Pakistan, but reels of females in a state of undressing more likely to be nearer home.  Some of the reels I have seen on Facebook, of females in state of undressing, dont look 18, they look like 16 years old, but its very likely they are over 18

I know some of the reels with babies with no clothes have been reported to Facebook, and there reply this video does not break any community rule

I haven't seen any of that I don't think, but I do regularly see ads for steroids and SARMS on Facebook

[sparkus]

That's nothing to do with the OF fine. And the OF fine doesn't affect Tate in any way.

Gotta say, what they allegedly did according to that article does look a lot like money laundering. I

OF is (or was) a revenue stream for the Tates and their online mini empire, the link posted without comment on the fly was just to mention that.

[scutty brown]

Surprised that no one has gone after Facebook, and there posts.  A lot has to be said, about the reels, and the content, and by the looks no ask what age is the person posting the reels, or some reels of kids with no clothes on

A lot of videos of babies seem to originate from India, or Pakistan, but reels of females in a state of undressing more likely to be nearer home.  Some of the reels I have seen on Facebook, of females in state of undressing, dont look 18, they look like 16 years old, but its very likely they are over 18

I know some of the reels with babies with no clothes have been reported to Facebook, and there reply this video does not break any community rule

What are you doing viewing that? Or even looking for it?
By doing so you're auditioning for a go-to-jail card.
FFS think about what you're doing

[daviemac]

Surprised that no one has gone after Facebook, and there posts.  A lot has to be said, about the reels, and the content, and by the looks no ask what age is the person posting the reels, or some reels of kids with no clothes on

A lot of videos of babies seem to originate from India, or Pakistan, but reels of females in a state of undressing more likely to be nearer home.  Some of the reels I have seen on Facebook, of females in state of undressing, dont look 18, they look like 16 years old, but its very likely they are over 18

I know some of the reels with babies with no clothes have been reported to Facebook, and there reply this video does not break any community rule

And people wonder why we don't allow links to social media sites.

BTW 'research' or 'curiosity' is no defence for looking at dodgy content online.

[akauya]

OF is (or was) a revenue stream for the Tates and their online mini empire, the link posted without comment on the fly was just to mention that.

I don't think the fact that the Tates had a huge revenue stream via OF was in question. What some of us question is why you were conflating two different issues into a conspiracy theory such as the 'Deep State' being on the offensive against the Tates.

OF got fined because they failed to comply with Ofcoms regulations. The original article you posted also states that OF accepted Ofcom's findings and got a 30% reduction from the penalty they would have got. In any case, if reports are to be believed about OF's global revenue then a £1.05M fine is like pocket change to them.

[akauya]

What are you doing viewing that? Or even looking for it?
By doing so you're auditioning for a go-to-jail card.
FFS think about what you're doing

100%! Exactly what I thought.

[chrishornx]

WTF!

I didn't know Andrew Tate owned OF!

Does he?

[akauya]

WTF!

I didn't know Andrew Tate owned OF!

Does he?

It was my lame attempt at sarcasm mate. Read my subsequent posts.

[myothernameis]

What are you doing viewing that? Or even looking for it?
By doing so you're auditioning for a go-to-jail card.
FFS think about what you're doing

100%! Exactly what I thought.

And people wonder why we don't allow links to social media sites.

BTW 'research' or 'curiosity' is no defence for looking at dodgy content online.

To clear things up, I dont go looking for this content, as some have said.  I would say 99% of the content on the Facebook reels, is perfectly ok to view.   But there content that goes unregulated or even checked, and I have reported content myself, but only to be told by Facebook, there nothing wrong with the content

[sparkus]

I don't think the fact that the Tates had a huge revenue stream via OF was in question. What some of us question is why you were conflating two different issues into a conspiracy theory such as the 'Deep State' being on the offensive against the Tates.

OF got fined because they failed to comply with Ofcoms regulations. The original article you posted also states that OF accepted Ofcom's findings and got a 30% reduction from the penalty they would have got. In any case, if reports are to be believed about OF's global revenue then a £1.05M fine is like pocket change to them.

Yeah, I was just taking the piss out of AT. Got me there.

[akauya]

Yeah, I was just taking the piss out of AT. Got me there.