OnlyFans sued for bribing Meta to register sexual content creators on 'terrorist watch list'
OnlyFans bribed Meta to put porn stars on terror watchlist: lawsuits
https://nypost.com/2022/08/09/onlyfans-bribed-meta-to-put-thousands-of-porn-stars-on-terror-watchlist-suits-claim/
OnlyFans 'bribed' Meta employees to put pornstars on terror watchlist, lawsuit claims |
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/onlyfans-facebook-meta-porn-stars-terrorists-b2143039.html
Lawsuits: OnlyFans bribed Instagram to put creators on “terrorist blacklist” [Updated] | Ars Technica
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/08/lawsuits-onlyfans-bribed-instagram-to-put-creators-on-terrorist-blacklist/
Since 2020, online adult content sharing platforms have grown rapidly as many people spend more time at home due to the pandemic of the new coronavirus infection (COVID-19). Among them, OnlyFans has seen remarkable growth, and it is predicted that the net profit in 2022 will reach 5 times that of 2020 .
As OnlyFans has grown, we've heard from adult content creators on other platforms, 'Facebook and Instagram are actively blocking their content, but they're not as enthusiastic about blocking content shared on OnlyFans.' It is said that voices of dissatisfaction have also risen. As a result of investigations by creators and competing platforms on this matter, the possibility that OnlyFans colluded with Meta and abused the 'terrorist watch list' to exclude content created by creators of competing platforms from SNS surfaced. It seems that I did.
And in 2022, adult content creators and platforms competing with OnlyFans filed class action lawsuits against OnlyFans and Meta. Creators who sold adult content on platforms other than OnlyFans had their Instagram accounts mistakenly tagged as 'containing terrorist-related content,' according to the lawsuit, losing their ability to promote their businesses and seeing significant revenue increases. It is said that it has decreased to
It is said that OnlyFans exploited to establish its own superiority is the
However, in 2018, OnlyFans' parent company, Fenix International, bribed senior Meta executives through its Hong Kong subsidiary into falsely flagging content posted on Instagram by creators on competing platforms and placing them on the GIFCT list. plaintiff alleges. Once you are registered with GIFCT, your content is much more likely to be banned on platforms like Twitter and YouTube as well.
Of course, these creators had nothing to do with terrorism, but content deletion and account suspension reduced creators' advertising ability and income, and traffic on competing platforms dropped sharply. ``I was outraged when I heard my content might be on a terrorist watch list,'' said Alana Evans , an adult content creator and one of the plaintiffs.
Milberg, Coleman, Bryson, Phillips, Grossman, a law firm representing the plaintiffs, said, 'The plaintiffs' blacklisting has allowed OnlyFans to dramatically increase its market share while its competitors have stagnated or declined.' engaged in a scheme to exploit terrorist blacklists for competitive advantage.' The office also states that it has a list of more than 21,000 Instagram accounts that have been compromised. In a statement to the New York Post, attorney David Azar said: 'To find out if our clients and their content are really in our databases for terrorists and how they can be unsubscribed.' In addition, we are asking Meta and GIFCT to release the records.
In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Meta argues that censoring adult content in an appropriate manner is protected by the First Amendment and the Communications Decency Act, while also exposing users from Instagram and Facebook to OnlyFans. He says there is no benefit to pushing him away. Fenix International also seeks dismissal of the lawsuit, claiming it has similar legally protected rights as Meta.
In response to these allegations, the defense team argued that plaintiffs are not at issue with blocked content, but rather with 'unfair business practices and abuse of terror watchlists,' and that the constitutional amendments Meta is suing. He argued that neither Article 1 nor the Communications Decency Act were applied.
In addition, a GIFCT spokesperson told Ars Technica, an overseas media company, that even if the content hash is registered, the content will not be automatically deleted on other platforms. It claims that it will independently consider the severity of the content and determine whether it will be censored. However, GIFCT's terrorist watch list is not open to the public, and participating platforms must use the feedback tool to delete or challenge hashes.
As of 2020, the Electronic Frontier Foundation , which advocates the protection of free speech in a digital society, said, ``With the spread of the GIFCT database, if a video, photo, or post is incorrectly classified as 'terrorism' content, social media platforms will It will spread to the whole, and the user's freedom of expression will be impaired on multiple platforms at once.' He expressed a sense of crisis about the existence of a single database used for censorship.
Related Posts:
in Web Service, Posted by log1h_ik