Talk:OnlyFans

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 12 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Idontknowhowtowiki.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thorne Photogragh

Was the Bella Thorne incident described in the article important enough to warrant the inclusion of her photograph? MabuseTest (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

No it's not very important but if it stays it needs to specify USD. 49.224.193.182 (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Section 4 (usage)

The language used in section 4 is not up to Wikipedia standards and is too casual, and/or includes unnecessary information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrotechniks (talk • contribs) 03:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree Jaden Vilane (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"In December 2022 its been reported that Blac Chyna makes a whopping 20 million dollars a month. while Blac Chyna make 20 million a month adding up to 240 million, there have reports that Cardi B has made only 108 million. "

This sentence is not only casual, it makes little sense. Clearly need to remove "whopping" and I don't understand the latter half at all. 107.190.41.180 (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

History updates

Greetings, I'm Alex. I work at OnlyFans. I created this account to provide resources to update this article to reflect that OnlyFans is a mainstream social platform with a diverse range of creators while taking Wikipedia's rules guiding editors like me with a conflict of interest seriously. To begin, I have drafted an updated "History" to share with the Wikipedia community for consideration. The draft updates stats, brings OnlyFans' non-adult entertainment into focus, adds notable users, highlights the impact of COVID-19 on the company's growth, and adds a small amount of detail on the soft launch of OFTV and the creation of a creative fund for UK musicians. I also moved around some info and copy edited throughout for clarity. Here's what I've worked up:

Extended content

History Tim Stokely launched OnlyFans in 2016 as a platform for performers to provide video and photos to followers for a monthly subscription fee. In 2018, technology entrepreneur and open source advocate Leonid Radvinsky, owner of MyFreeCams, acquired 75% ownership of OnlyFans' parent company, Fenix International Ltd., and became one of its directors. Although OnlyFans’ initial popularity stemmed primarily from adult entertainment, its content was not limited to that category. It gained mainstream attention when rapper Cardi B and actress and singer Bella Thorne took to the platform In 2019, OnlyFans introduced an extra safeguard into the account verification process. As a result, creators must provide a selfie headshot with their ID in the image in order to prove that the ID provided belongs to the account holder. In January 2020, 20-year-old American Kaylen Ward raised more than US$1 million in contributions to charity during the wild bushfires in Australia. OnlyFans teamed with her for its first partnership for a charitable cause. This started a trend with some OnlyFans creators who have been raising money through their accounts. The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns had significant impacts on OnlyFans' growth. New user and creator accounts increased by 75 percent from March to April 2020, when OnlyFans was valued at as much as $936 million. Estimates are difficult to ascertain as the company does not release its aggregate level data. In naming OnlyFans one of the 10 most innovative social media companies in 2021, Fast Company wrote that OnlyFans' "scale and cultural relevance have exploded" during the COVID-19 pandemic as creators sought new ways to earn money and consumers sought out new forms of digital entertainment. The influx of creators seen as a result of the pandemic, includes a variety of content creators such as personal trainers, gamers, musicians, and other celebrities. OnlyFans and its so-called "creator economy" had also become a popular platform for fashion influencers, including Rebecca Minkoff during New York Fashion Week. OnlyFans and the Demon Time social media show launched a collaboration in May 2020 to create a monetized virtual nightclub using the site's dual- screen live feature. The collaboration was a response to Beyoncé name dropping OnlyFans and Demon Time on a remix of Megan Thee Stallion's song "Savage. In late 2020, OnlyFans had 85 million users and more than a million creators. By March 2021, OnlyFans' user base topped 120 million and creators collectively earned $3 billion in revenue. OnlyFans claims it receives as many as 500,000 new users daily and pays out more than $200 million a month to creators. OnlyFans soft launched OFTV in 2021. The free app OFTV and streaming site OF.TV showcase OnlyFans' safe for work content from chefs, fitness experts, musicians, and others, alongside original programming. Also in 2021, DJ Khaled and Fat Joe created a joint OnlyFans account to give their fans motivational talks and a behind-the-scenes look into their personal lives. In March 2021, OnlyFans launched a creative fund to provide £20,000 grants to four emerging musicians in the UK. Included in the panel that selected the grantees was Stefflon Don. In April 2021, Time named OnlyFans to its Time 100 Most Influential Companies list.

References

Per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing, I am proposing these changes for peer review instead of editing the article directly because of my conflict of interest. Are editors interested in reviewing my draft and considering its placement (or some form of it) in the live article? AG at OnlyFans (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just to weigh in I think it sounds reasonable covering the history of the company. my only concern is that it doesn't highlight that what brought the company to light was its stance on pornography on the platform, even if the company is now trying to steer it in a more mainstream direction. Gsykesvoyage (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gsykesvoyage: You have a fair point. My overall goal is to show the growth and diversity of OnlyFans as a social media platform. I'll take a look at sourcing to see how I can incorporate your feedback into my draft. I'll be back with updated language in a few days. AG at OnlyFans (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gsykesvoyage: Would you mind looking at my revised draft below? I added a couple sentences early on that speak to the point you raised in your feedback.

Extended content

History Tim Stokely launched OnlyFans in 2016 as a platform for performers to provide video and photos to followers for a monthly subscription fee. Initially, due to its liberal content policies, OnlyFans attracted creators in the glamour model and adult sector. Fast Company reported, "Amateur and professionals alike have flocked to OnlyFans as a safe haven to monetize NSFW (not safe for work) content, becoming the key drivers of the platforms early growth." In 2018, technology entrepreneur and open source advocate Leonid Radvinsky, owner of MyFreeCams, acquired 75% ownership of OnlyFans' parent company, Fenix International Ltd., and became one of its directors. Although OnlyFans’ initial popularity stemmed primarily from adult entertainment, its content was not limited to that category. It gained mainstream attention when rapper Cardi B and actress and singer Bella Thorne took to the platform In 2019, OnlyFans introduced an extra safeguard into the account verification process. As a result, creators must provide a selfie headshot with their ID in the image in order to prove that the ID provided belongs to the account holder. In January 2020, 20-year-old American Kaylen Ward raised more than US$1 million in contributions to charity during the wild bushfires in Australia. OnlyFans teamed with her for its first partnership for a charitable cause. This started a trend with some OnlyFans creators who have been raising money through their accounts. The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns had significant impacts on OnlyFans' growth. New user and creator accounts increased by 75 percent from March to April 2020, when OnlyFans was valued at as much as $936 million. Estimates are difficult to ascertain as the company does not release its aggregate level data. In naming OnlyFans one of the 10 most innovative social media companies in 2021, Fast Company wrote that OnlyFans' "scale and cultural relevance have exploded" during the COVID-19 pandemic as creators sought new ways to earn money and consumers sought out new forms of digital entertainment. The influx of creators seen as a result of the pandemic, includes a variety of content creators such as personal trainers, gamers, musicians, and other celebrities. OnlyFans and its so-called "creator economy" had also become a popular platform for fashion influencers, including Rebecca Minkoff during New York Fashion Week. OnlyFans and the Demon Time social media show launched a collaboration in May 2020 to create a monetized virtual nightclub using the site's dual- screen live feature. The collaboration was a response to Beyoncé name dropping OnlyFans and Demon Time on a remix of Megan Thee Stallion's song "Savage. In late 2020, OnlyFans had 85 million users and more than a million creators. By March 2021, OnlyFans' user base topped 120 million and creators collectively earned $3 billion in revenue. OnlyFans claims it receives as many as 500,000 new users daily and pays out more than $200 million a month to creators. OnlyFans soft launched OFTV in 2021. The free app OFTV and streaming site OF.TV showcase OnlyFans' safe for work content from chefs, fitness experts, musicians, and others, alongside original programming. Also in 2021, DJ Khaled and Fat Joe created a joint OnlyFans account to give their fans motivational talks and a behind-the-scenes look into their personal lives. In March 2021, OnlyFans launched a creative fund to provide £20,000 grants to four emerging musicians in the UK. Included in the panel that selected the grantees was Stefflon Don. In April 2021, Time named OnlyFans to its Time 100 Most Influential Companies list.

References

Thank you for considering its placement (or some form of it) in the live article. AG at OnlyFans (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@AG at OnlyFans: - what content is this supposed to be replacing? There's sourced content in the first two sections that is not here (notably content that perhaps is not as positive as OF may wish), but obviously there'd be heavy duplication were it to just be added in (not to mention having a "founding", "growth", and "history" sections!). That said, it's decent, and you're following the rules, so please get back to me so I consider it properly. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Great question. It appears there have been structural and content changes to the article since I first proposed this update two months ago. I was hoping that some form of my draft would replace the "History" section. But since that time, this article's "History" section has been divided into "Founding" and "Growth", and some additional content has been published, which is why you don't see it in my draft. What do you think is the best way to move forward? Should I put together a new draft that takes the recent changes to the live article into account? Thanks for your feedback. AG at OnlyFans (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done: The article's content has changed to the point that the proposed text of this request is no longer necessary. Quetstar (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Beyoncé mention

According to https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/23/everyone-and-their-mum-is-on-it-onlyfans-boomed-in-popularity-during-the-pandemic the Beyoncé mention caused a 15% increase in traffic after the Beyoncé song, but it says that the Beyoncé song was released in June, which is not correct: it was released in April. For this reason I did not add this 15% to the article as the article contains verifiable mistakes. -- leuce (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@Leuce: I noticed your constructive work in the "History" section. If you are still interested in making improvements to "History", I wanted to notify you of my edit request above. I work at OnlyFans. Per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing, I am proposing these changes for peer review instead of editing the article directly because of my conflict of interest. AG at OnlyFans (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

section on child exploitation

The BBC has released another report on child exploitation on the site. due to the nature of the site, I think this is a big enough issue for them that it deserves its subheading in the controversies section. 86.31.220.10 (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Added to the controversies section the DOJ investigation into the same

https://wagner.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congresswoman-ann-wagner-leads-bipartisan-coalition-calling-for-doj-to

2600:1700:BE60:2B60:0:0:0:46 (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Porn Ban Announcement References

The two articles referenced to support the October-ban statement (from Bloomberg and Variety) lack sources for their claims. I've tried finding any other articles from different outlets that do have a source for this announcement, but I have not been successful. I'm worried that this claim could be false, since I cannot find evidence for it, and so I am unsure that it should be mentioned on this entry until the veracity of this claim is determined.

Apologies if there's a better place for this; I'm new to interacting on wikipedia :)

Magnostherobot (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The referenced articles only have to be from publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They do not have to specifically identify their sources or how they fact-checked the news item. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: Thanks for pointing me to the appropriate rules.

As a personal side note, if anyone does come across evidence of this announcement, I'd appreciate seeing it!

Magnostherobot (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The news is confirmed by the BBC [1] who asked for a corporate response after discovering illegal material on the website. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2021

The page links to an article claiming that OnlyFans blamed the decision to ban porn on credit card companies — the article the page links to has since been updated to point out that the company said in Financial Times interview that pressure from banks, such as BNY Mellon and JPMorgan, is to blame. 77.53.215.50 (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done: tried to implement this as best I can without actually being able to see the Financial Times interview. In the lead I've just gone with mention of banks, and in the body I mention the initial reporting of credit cards and then the CEO later blaming BNY Mellon and JPMorgan. If someone could access the paywalled Financial Times interview then that could be a significant help. — Bilorv (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I could paste the entire text, but I'm not sure if that would be violating copyright. UTILITY MESSIAH (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah it would be a copyright violation to post it here. If you have email enabled, you can send me the full text by email, and I'll see what we can include from it in the article. Or you could make an attempt to summarize the useful information in the article yourself. — Bilorv (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant, received the email and incorporated some information. And now there's been a U-turn, and hopefully some changes by me and a couple of others have caught us up with that a bit. — Bilorv (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid edits

I have added an {{undisclosed paid}} tag to this article because of extensive editing by a UPE sockfarm, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tactical Fiend for evidence. Users relevant to this page include: Central Midfielder (talk · contribs), The Way of the Fewture (talk · contribs) The article will need a thorough review ensuring due weight, neutral language, and use of reliable sources before the tag is removed. MarioGom (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I've re-added what The Way of the Fewture removed (very subtle and malicious censorship). Someone needs to take a look at Central Midfielder's edits here and then I think the tag can be removed. — Bilorv (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bilorv, Alex from OnlyFans here again. I thought I'd let you know that I'm the only one from the company attempting to change the page and I've only made requests on the Talk page. I haven't done any direct editing. Since it has been a while and no one has reviewed Central Midfielder's edits, I thought maybe I could take a stab at it, if that's okay with you? Please let me know. Thank you. AG at OnlyFans (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Fixing this was on my long longlist of things to do but because you've asked I've gone ahead; I didn't see any major issues but I rephrased a couple of things more neutrally, and removed the tag. Others will know more than me about what the editing situation was here, which may have been undisclosed paid editing (UPE) by someone on behalf of a parent or sister company or a key figure like the CEO, or just someone at OnlyFans that you're not aware of, but there will be strong evidence that the user was engaging in UPE in at least some of their edits and that's a strong indicator that these ones were UPE. — Bilorv (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bilorv, I really appreciate you taking a second look. I will definitely keep that in mind about UPE. Thanks again! AG at OnlyFans (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Bella Thorne for Vogue 2019 03.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

History updates (October 2021)

Greetings, I'm Alex at OnlyFans. Because I am employed by the topic of this article, I have a conflict of interest, so I am submitting this edit request seeking updates to History. Back in May, I proposed updates to History. I received some feedback and questions from Nosebagbear and Gsykesvoyage that was helpful. Ultimately, that request was declined due to an uptick in editing that made my request moot, which was the right call at the time.

My proposed changes include:

Founding

1. Changed "became its director" to "became one of its directors" for accuracy

    Done — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

2. Deleted "OnlyFans charges a 20% fee for all transactions made on the site", as it seems like it would fit better somewhere other than History

   Hmm, this is somewhere where expansion is needed. For now it's floating under "History" but no longer within "Founding", preceded by another sentence we'll get to later. — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Growth

1. Included a brief mention to how OnlyFans' liberal content policies attracted creators in the glamour model and adult sector and drove the site's growth

   Not doing the more promotional parts of this. I'm happy with a summary of Fast Company's opinion, attributed, but not "liberal content policies", nor euphemisms like "adult sector". — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

2. Included material to show how OnlyFans gained more mainstream attention
3. Copy edits for clarity
4. Deleted "The site has over 24 million registered users and claims to have paid out £526,785,000 (US$725 million) to its 450,000 content creators", as it is outdated
5. Moved up Kaylen Ward fundraising initiative to fit in chronological order

   All fine by me, with some rewording. — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

6. Added a paragraph about the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on OnlyFans' growth

   Summarised some of the excesses but added. Also repurposed some of the "Content genres" section here, as the information was a bit out of place in one weird paragraph at the bottom of the article. As part of disassembling that section I've stuck a summarising sentence at the top of "History". — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

   Idk 66.115.124.231 (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

7. Copy edited material on OnlyFans' partnership with "Demon Time" for readability

    Done — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

8. Added "at the time" in sentence about Bella Thorne for accuracy

   Not needed: past tense ("set a new record") makes "at the time" redundant. — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

9. Added a paragraph about size of user base and creators as of 2020

   Don't think the "up to 500,000" is worth much as it says nothing without an understanding of the distribution (median/mean/skewness), but the rest are good stats. — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

10. Added a short paragraph on the launch of OFTV
11. Added a short paragraph on notable creators, such as Floyd Mayweather Jr., Terrell Owens, DJ Khaled, and Fat Joe
12. Added brief mention of the creation of a creative fund for UK musicians

    Summarised all to one paragraph, but added. — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

13. Added recognition as one of the Time 100 Most Influential Companies

     Done — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about child sexual abuse material

1. Added OnlyFans' response to the Vice report, which is included in the source cited in the live article

   PR jargon providing no new information. What company says that it tolerates child sexual abuse material? What other than "its own technology, third-party technologies, and human moderation" could possibly be used to detect and remove CSAM? I'm happy describing the moderation only when it's been independently investigated, scrutinized and reported by journalists (which Vice has not done here). — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

2021 planned porn ban

1. In the third paragraph, changed the word "they" to "it", as the article is referring to the company, not a person

    Done, good spot. — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

If this is too much to review at once, we can talk it over in chunks. I requested it all at once so editors could see exactly what I did, and how it all fits together.

Extended content

History Founding OnlyFans was launched in November 2016 as a platform for performers to provide clips and photos to followers for a monthly subscription fee. Tim Stokely founded the company alongside his older brother, Thomas, and with the help of a £10,000 (US$13,271.96) loan from his father, Guy Stokely, who told him "Tim, this is going to be the last one". His brother became the company's chief operating officer and his father is head of finance for OnlyFans. Two years later, Ukrainian-American businessman Leonid Radvinsky, owner of MyFreeCams, acquired 75% ownership of Fenix International Limited and became one of its directors. After this, OnlyFans became increasingly focused on not safe for work (NSFW) content and "gained a pop culture reputation for being a hive of pornography". Growth Initially, due to its liberal content policies, OnlyFans attracted creators in the glamour model and adult sector. Fast Company reported, "Amateur and professionals alike have flocked to OnlyFans as a safe haven to monetize NSFW (not safe for work) content, becoming the key drivers of the platforms early growth." Although OnlyFans’ initial popularity stemmed primarily from adult entertainment, its content was not limited to that category. It gained mainstream attention when rapper Cardi B and actress and singer Bella Thorne took to the platform. In 2019, OnlyFans introduced an extra safeguard into the account verification process. As a result, creators must provide a selfie headshot with their ID in the image in order to prove that the ID provided belongs to the account holder. In January 2020, 20-year-old American Kaylen Ward raised more than US$1 million in contributions to charity during the wild bushfires in Australia. OnlyFans teamed with her for their first partnership for a charitable cause. This started a trend with some OnlyFans creators who have been raising money through their accounts. The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns had significant impacts on OnlyFans' growth. New user and creator accounts increased by 75 percent from March to April 2020. In naming OnlyFans one of the 10 most innovative social media companies in 2021, Fast Company wrote that OnlyFans and its relevance grew during the COVID-19 pandemic as creators sought new ways to earn money and consumers sought out new forms of digital entertainment. The influx of creators seen as a result of the pandemic includes a variety of content creators such as personal trainers, gamers, musicians, and other celebrities. OnlyFans and its so-called "creator economy" had also become a popular platform for fashion influencers, including Rebecca Minkoff during New York Fashion Week. After the site was mentioned by Beyoncé in the remix of the Megan Thee Stallion song, "Savage", in April 2020, CEO Tim Stokely claimed OnlyFans was "seeing about 200,000 new users every 24 hours and 7,000 to 8,000 new creators joining every day." It was reportedly a 15% spike in traffic after the remix's release. In the same line, "Savage" also mentioned Demon Time, a social media show. Shortly after the release of that song, OnlyFans announced a partnership with Demon Time to create a monetized virtual nightclub using the site's dual-screen live feature. Bella Thorne earned $1 million in a day, sparking controversy Bella Thorne set a new OnlyFans record at the time when she earned over $1 million within 24 hours of joining the platform in August 2020 and more than $2 million in less than a week. Her activities on OnlyFans sparked controversy after she allegedly promised nude photos for $200 but instead only provided lingerie-clad photographs, leading to a slew of chargebacks. Following the debacle, new restrictions were introduced that limited the amount that other creators on the platform could charge and how quickly they could get paid, though OnlyFans stated the restrictions were unrelated to Thorne but rather part of "an evolving process". Thorne's actions caused backlash among sex workers who felt Thorne had selfishly appropriated their profession. In late 2020, OnlyFans had 85 million users and more than a million creators. By March 2021, OnlyFans' user base topped 120 million and creators collectively earned $3 billion in revenue. OnlyFans claims it receives as many as 500,000 new users daily and pays out more than $200 million a month to creators. OnlyFans soft launched OFTV in 2021. The free app OFTV and streaming site OF.TV showcase OnlyFans' safe for work content from chefs, fitness experts, musicians, and others, alongside original programming. Also in 2021, professional boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr. joined OnlyFans, as OnlyFans sought new funding at a company valuation of $1 billion. Other new creators included DJ Khaled and Fat Joe, who created a joint OnlyFans account to give their fans motivational talks and a behind-the-scenes look into their personal lives, and former NFL receiver Terrell Owens. In March 2021, OnlyFans launched a creative fund to provide £20,000 grants to four emerging musicians in the UK. Included in the panel that selected the grantees was Stefflon Don. In April 2021, Time named OnlyFans to its Time 100 Most Influential Companies list. That month, Bhad Bhabie broke Thorne's OnlyFans record by earning over $1 million in the first 6 hours. This event sparked criticism on social media about her subscribers given that she had turned 18 the previous week. Concerns about child sexual abuse material A BBC Three documentary alleged in 2020 that a third of Twitter profiles globally advertising 'nudes4sale' (or similar) belong to underage individuals, many of whom used OnlyFans to share their content. In May 2021, the BBC reported that OnlyFans was "failing to prevent underage users from selling and appearing in explicit videos" after an investigation. This included reports from UK Police, schools and Childline. However, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children reported under 100 instances of child sexual abuse material on OnlyFans per year, while MindGeek-owned companies accounted for around 13,000 cases, Twitter accounted for 65,000 and Facebook accounted for 20 million instances, around 95% of total recorded incidents. On 10 August 2021, US Congresswoman Ann Wagner—known for introducing the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) bill—announced a bipartisan coalition pressuring the Department of Justice to investigate OnlyFans for child exploitation, citing increasing reports by law enforcement and child safety organizations that minors are being sold on OnlyFans, as well as instances of sex trafficking and image-based abuse. Over 100 Congresspeople signed the petition. The Christian pressure group Exodus Cry and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, founded as a Catholic organization, were cited as influencers in the campaign against the website. In a statement to Vice Media, OnlyFans said it has "a zero tolerance policy relating to child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on our social media platform". OnlyFans uses its own technology, third-party technologies, and human moderation teams to locate and address abusive material. The company said the system identifies, escalates, and reports illegal material to law enforcement and other authorities. 2021 planned porn ban Shortly following increased campaigning against OnlyFans due to concerns about child sexual abuse material, on 19 August 2021, the company announced that from 1 October 2021 onwards it will not be allowing sexually explicit content. The company pushed the update through a new Terms of Service Policy. The company would still have allowed nudity on some grounds. The reason for this shift was initially reported as pressure from credit card companies including Mastercard, but CEO Tim Stokely later told Financial Times that it was due to withdrawn support from banks such as BNY Mellon and JPMorgan Chase, and that Mastercard had "no bearing on the decision". Stokely said that BNY Mellon had "flagged and rejected" each transaction from the company and that Metro Bank had withdrawn support abruptly in 2019. The decision was met with widespread backlash by creators and consumers of OnlyFans. Six days after the initial announcement, OnlyFans said that it would be reversing the decision and that adult content would be allowed on the site indefinitely, citing that they had "secured assurances necessary" to do so. References

Per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Paid_editing, I am proposing these changes for peer review instead of editing the article directly because of my conflict of interest. Are editors interested in reviewing my draft and considering its placement (or some form of it) in the live article? AG at OnlyFans (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

 In progress: taking a look at these now. — Bilorv (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi AG at OnlyFans, I've responded inline to each point and made the changes in this edit. I notice that your edits consistently de-emphasise the prominence of sex work on the site; unfortunately, so do some of the reliable sources available. I've implemented summaries of your additions where possible, and refused to action a minority. When I have the time, I'll separately have to gather together all the criticisms of OnlyFans I've read by pornographic performers and make sure their views are properly reflected in the article. I'm disappointed that, based on your apparent briefing here, OnlyFans is continuing its attempts to marginalise sex workers (perhaps with an eventual plan to ban them). Let me know any follow-up questions you have (responding inline could be simplest if there's lots of them).

I'd also encourage other editors to spotcheck some of the new content for faithfulness to the cited sources, and neutrality. — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I appreciate your updates to this article on my behalf. My overall goal with this request was to show how OnlyFans has grown and to update old figures based on recent press. Your review and edits have helped reflect that, Thank you. AG at OnlyFans (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Additional sources for tax criticism

I can't seem to find additional reporting besides Sky News's July 2020 piece on the unverified issue of unpaid taxes.

As their own article states, it's not clear whether OnlyFans or Fenix International Ltd owes additional taxes, as the company itself state that they're paying VAT as an agent and may not need to switch to being the principal. If they do, they may or may not owe back taxes after the switch.

Further, the issue of Sky being the only entity covering this is concerning. Perception among many is that components of Sky media operates as more of a tabloid than a center of journalistic integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohheyjosh (talk • contribs) 22:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

"OnlySimps" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect OnlySimps and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 23#OnlySimps until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Sanctions during the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022

Dear @Bilorv, I appreciate improvements and thus the motivation to do so. I agree that you removed 'language=en' from the sources since seemingly it doesn't belong there, so thanks.

But I don't agree with the cutting of the heading. I wanted to improve it after you editor to something more precise or differently worded but I haven't been able to come up with something better. But I state that your edit with "2022 sanctions" could mean anything, especially that OnlyFans could have been of a sanctioning list. I am still open for improvements, also on the title of that header, but please let it be an improvement. I'm open to discuss it here. Please also be aware about WP:3RR

Addition: I'm also open to work on restructuring the whole ToC since it seems organically grown and thus could be changed to give a better frame for additions. Right now everything has to fit under History or Criticism.

Best wishes GavriilaDmitriev (talk • they/them) 14:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@GavriilaDmitriev: I believe you have confused my edit with that of AFreshStart. — Bilorv (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, Bilorv . And @GavriilaDmitriev:: I'm happy to restore the previous heading, as I do agree that the current trimmed subheading is a bit vague. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv Yes, I double checked and still made the mistake! I hope you received my thanks for your edit. Very much appreciated! GavriilaDmitriev (talk • they/them) 14:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@AFreshStart No need to change, I already did that since I also did further editing. Glad to see you being so responsive and understanding here 👍 GavriilaDmitriev (talk • they/them) 14:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries, and I'm glad the situation has been resolved. — Bilorv (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Improvement of Competitors

Dear @‎Bilorv. It would have been nice to discuss first your changes before you proceed to do removals of that kind in an article. You remove sourced content and create more work. I am open to criticism and I appreciate the explanation provided in your edit message:

only source that mentions OnlyFans is Fansly, but we don't use external links in prose. Summarising the MEL Magazine source to make the relation to OnlyFans clear

So I want to ask you which out of the 19(!) points under WP:ELNO is what you have meant? I can't follow your argument to require the forced mention the exact term OnlyFans in an source. What do you intend with that change?

Furthermore I improved the competitor part and removed the external primary links and added further secondary sources. I remind you again of WP:3RR.

GavriilaDmitriev (talk • they/them) 06:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

You have misunderstood what edit warring is. Wikipedians are encouraged to be bold in making most changes without discussion (but not repeatedly making the same change), and I would estimate in 90–98% of edits of this type (content changes that consist of removing & improving) that I make there is no objection, and I am regularly thanked for my edit. There is no need to link me to 3RR as if I have intention of breaking it or am not aware of it, and this comes across as hostile and patronising.

I didn't think it really needed explaining why content in the article "OnlyFans" should have a source that uses the word "OnlyFans", but synthesis would be the reason: we cannot make comparisons not made in a reliable source. When you list a website under the heading "Competitors" in the article OnlyFans, it very clearly makes a claim that they are a direct competitor to OnlyFans. This claim needs a source.

In other cases, you have written content that is not verified by the given sources. The BBC source is reliable, relevant and useful here, but I have removed the text associated with it for the time being as it does not use the words "shadowban" or "deplatform" or even say that the website was founded in 2017. You are welcome to add back in the source with a summary of its content, not unrelated text. The policy associated with this is verifiability. I have already shown you a model example in the summary I wrote of the MEL Magazine article, but lack the time to do this one justice.

You need to be much more selective in your use of sources, as many you have used across your two edits are not reliable. For instance, a Forbes "Senior Contributor" (not a staff member) is generally unreliable. Note that the vast majority of sources will not be explicitly listed at RSP, so you need to determine reliability yourself.

As for WP:ELNO, #19 is most directly applicable, but several others are too. Better on my part might have been a pointer to WP:ELPOINTS#2. — Bilorv (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Request to add new information

Hello editors, Alex from OnlyFans. I was hoping to get some content added to the Growth section.

1. Add context about what our employees do. For that, I'm proposing to add a bit to the sentence which says we employ 1,000 people, so it would look like this:

   As of June 7, 2022, OnlyFans employed over 1,000 people around the world, 80% of whom focus on content moderation and support.

2. Add information about the show Model Farms which premiered on OFTV immediately after the sentence about our employee numbers, something like the following:

   In 2022, OnlyFans announced a new show on OFTV, Model Farmers, a reality television show hosted by Becky Houze. The show features celebrities working on a farm in the United Kingdom.

3. Immediately after that sentence, add a sentence about Alexandra Hunt using the platform to raise campaign funds, something like this:

   The same year, Pennsylvania congressional candidate Alexandra Hunt joined the platform and announced that her campaign had raised more than $94,500 in one month.

4. Add sentences about the OnlyFans Creative Fund Competition before the sentence about Carmen Electra joining the platform, something like the following:

   In 2022, OnlyFans launched its second Creative Fund competition, focusing on the fashion industry. The competition included a $50,000 top prize, a role in a series airing on OFTV about the competition, and mentorship from designer Rebecca Minkoff. The competition was judged by Law Roach, Sir John, and Maeve Reilly.

References

Please let me know what you think. I am open to adjusting wordings and as always, I won't make any edits myself due to my conflict of interest. @Bilorv:, you've reviewed my requests in the past, would you have any interest in looking at these four small ones? I would very much appreciate it. AG at OnlyFans (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, AG at OnlyFans. I've implemented all of these suggestions in some form.

1. Done, with minor rewording.
2. Done but placed it in the paragraph on OFTV/SFW content, with a bit more concision.
3. Done in the same paragraph as Carmen Electra. I see there's more sources that cover the same story, but I'll leave it at that sentence for now.
4. Joined it up with the other creative fund content, and mostly in my own words, but done.

The "Growth" subsection in particular is a bit burgeoning—different content should generally be arranged by theme rather than chronologically (even though it's a "History" section, I know), and then sometimes that makes it easier to see what the correct reorganisation is. I wonder if perhaps there should be a section on individual creators, a section on the SFW initiatives, and a (much improved) section on sex worker experience of the company.

— Bilorv (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Bilorv! I like what you did with the rewording and placement to help everything flow better. And I agree with what you said about the organization. I'll try to do some thinking on it and see if I can't come up with something to start the conversation at least. I'm not sure when I'll be able to dig into it though. Thanks again for your help with these requests! AG at OnlyFans (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Update requests

Hello editors, Alex from OnlyFans. I was hoping to add a little more information and update the article a bit with the following items:

1. Update revenues to $932 million for 2021 and add that line to the infobox, based on this source
2. Add information about expansion of Creative Fund show to include comedy show, with source, something like this:

   In September 2022, OnlyFans announced an expansion of its Creative Fund competition, adding a stand-up comedy-based contest to premiere in 2023.

3. Add partnership with Spring to allow creators to sell merchandise directly through their OnlyFans account, something like this:

   In November 2022, OnlyFans partnered with the e-commerce platform Spring to help creators sell merchandise through the OnlyFans website. OnlyFans does not take a percentage of the merchandise sales.

4. Add addition of the Sims family and Whitney Cummings to OFTV lineup, something like this

   In 2022, OnlyFans signed deals with the Sims family, who starred in the English reality television show The Only Way is Essex, and Whitney Cummings to star in shows for OFTV, set to release in 2023. Cummings also started an account on OnlyFans' main site.

5. Add OnlyFans funding Child Rescue Coalition project to assist with research into why people make CSAM, something like this:

   In October 2022, OnlyFans partnered with the Child Rescue Coalition to help develop the "Apollo" project, which increases the transparency of information related to child sexual abuse materials between law enforcement officials and researchers to aid in researching how and why offenders share such content. OnlyFans provided a $500,000 grant to support the project.

References

Please let me know if you have any questions about any of these suggestions. @Bilorv: would you be interested in reviewing this request? I've really appreciated your help in the past. Thanks in advance! AG at OnlyFans (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@AG at OnlyFans: I've rounded revenue to 1 significant figure ($900 million) and added, also using the source for the information that owner Leonid Radvinsky received around $500 million in dividends from roughly the last two years.

I've added the Comedy Edition and OFTV content in my own words.

TechCrunch is a bit controversial (WP:TECHCRUNCH) but in my analysis, this source is good enough and independent from the topic, with some critical comments, so I've added it. If someone reverts me on this then I won't object.

I've summarised the CSAM Telegraph source in my own words. Readers can make up their own minds as to whether the project will be effective and whether this money from OnlyFans is intended benevolently.

— Bilorv (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Bilorv! I appreciate your willingness to review these requests. AG at OnlyFans (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Earnings

Because of this recent edit[2], should unverified earnings be included in this article? It seems like promotional WP:SPAMBAIT. Other examples from the same source: Corinna Kopf,unverified Belle Delphinethis one is verified Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's potentially encyclopedic information; though not a typical case, the figure if true shows what the richest people on the platform can earn. I don't feel so strongly about whether the information is reliable enough to conclude, as I think Insider is borderline for reliability and I can see that perhaps Amouranth isn't to be taken at her word if the claim is self-serving. — Bilorv (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Insider or Business Insider also verified earnings in this article[3]. This is a question of how much weight do we want to put on these unverified earnings claims. They sound big but are they appropriate for inclusion vs others. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Screen of OnlyFans.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

How do u participate here

How to participate here Jaden Vilane (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

OnlyFans is mainly used by pornographic creators ????

Why does it say MAINLY used by porn creators, when that's 99% of the content, yet social media sites that allow free speech wiki lists as is made for the far right?

Pretty odd. --2603:90C8:503:BE18:E18A:9049:BC5C:33EE (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

What change are you proposing to be made to the article OnlyFans? — Bilorv (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Article reorganization

Hello editors, about a year ago I had said I'd take a look at how the article was organized and I'm happy to say that I've wrapped that up! A draft with a diff with the changes can be found here. I also added a breakdown of the changes in a talk page post on the draft. Please let me know what you think is the best way to go about proposing these changes.

@Bilorv: I had talked about this with you last August, so I wanted to let you know in case you were still interested in looking at it.

I'm happy to answer any questions about the draft and I'm excited to get started! AG at OnlyFans (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Responded here. — Bilorv (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Small update requests and thanks

Hello editors, I have a few requests to make after the recent overhaul to the article, but first I wanted to give my thanks to Bilorv for taking the time to read through my draft, make changes and updates, and leave some really constructive feedback on it. I know that it was a huge ask and I really appreciate you taking the time to look it over and make the changes you did.

Now that things have settled a bit, I did have a couple of small requests that I hope will improve the article even more.

• Add "Creator economy" to the industry field of the infobox.
  • I think it's a good descriptor and OnlyFans is mentioned in the creator economy article as an example of the industry.

• Remove the sentences "The website Fansly surged in popularity as an alternative to OnlyFans for sex workers after the retracted ban announcement. Originally beginning operations in November 2020, Fansly's website design and functionality has been regarded by MEL Magazine as 'nearly identical' to OnlyFans." from Restrictions on pornographic creators.
  • This really isn't about OnlyFans, it's about Fansly
  • MEL Magazine also doesn't appear to be WP:RELIABLE – there's no corrections policy, no apparent conflict of interest disclosures, and the Wikipedia article on MEL also appears to show it was a short-lived publication with a very small team before it closed, and in that context I wonder about its reliability.
  • There also wasn't a consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard about its reliability.
  • These sentences aren't making an exceptional claim, but the combination of limited relevance (I think those sentences would be more appropriate in an article about Fansly) and unclear reliability make me think the sentences should be removed.

Please let me know what you think! In the meantime I am continuing to work on responses to some of Bilorv's other comments on the draft. AG at OnlyFans (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@AG at OnlyFans  Question: I'm curious to know why these two points weren't handled during the article reorganization discussion that you've been having with Bilorv, or if they were, why they're being brought up here outside of that discussion as an edit request. You mentioned that at least part of the discussion was held at RS/N regarding MEL Magazine's claim, a discussion which found no consensus. So I'm wondering why you would turn to this forum, which, by invoking the edit COI template, would doubtless bring an uninitiated editor to make the decision when, up to this point, you've had other editors willing to take a look at some of these same issues. Regards,  Spintendo  09:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please establish a consensus with editors engaged in the subject area before using the {{Edit COI}} template for this proposed change. The COI editor stated "Please let me know what you think! In the meantime I am continuing to work on responses to some of Bilorv's other comments on the draft." To be fair to all involved (and to prevent any unintentional resemblance to WP:FORUMSHOPPING) it would be prudent to resolve that discussion first before opening a new one with this edit request. Regards,  Spintendo  20:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm new to the discussion but don't feel like I've been forum shopped. I took some time to review the history of the article, and I'm in agreement that the section about Fansly should be removed. It used to be part of a Competitors section, which seemed to be a spam magnet for inline external links to other companies. I think categories are a better way to connect similar companies. I can't find anything in the MOS about having or not having competitors' sections, but maybe other editors know the consensus? But in this case, the info has been rewritten to be even more flattering of Fansly. Another way to look at this is if this was an edit request to add the info, would it be approved? Certainly not, since there's no Wikilink for Fansly, and it seems to be the type of edit a competitor would like to see in the article. I'll leave this to the previous participants to address, but just throwing this out for discussion. And I also agree with creator economy. TIME calls it that.STEMinfo (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@STEMinfo I appreciate your input, but if the COI editor was attempting to elicit additional editor participation in this discussion, the {{Edit COI}} template is not the way to go about it. That template is meant to be placed once consensus has been achieved, and according to the COI editor's own statements in their post, that discussion has yet to be concluded. Regards,  Spintendo  01:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I was the one who introduced the Competitors section and I strongly resist the idea that I introduced a spam magnet, because each entry needed a reliable secondary source (and I consider MEL reliable for what is written). The lack of an article for Fansly means this sourced information couldn't be hosted at another article. I don't understand how the content is flattering of Fansly, either, when its description is as a carbon copy of OnlyFans' website design. Here we don't have a paid editor from Fansly nudging things one way or the other, but we have a paid editor from OnlyFans telling us that the company is worried about the mention in the article. For us that's not a worry.

On "creator economy", the edit request was insufficient without a source but with STEMinfo's TIME source I'm happy for it to be added. — Bilorv (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I felt these requests were separate from the direct ask for the reorganization Bilorv had made about a year ago. No real reason, it just felt like a separate issue, so it seemed appropriate to me to open a fresh request. It also seemed appropriate to me to move this conversation from my more secluded draft page to the more well-traveled OnlyFans Talk page, to ensure that everything was as open as possible. My goal here is to be transparent and follow the rules as best I can, and I did what I thought necessary to make sure everything was as transparent as possible.

@STEMinfo and Bilorv: I appreciate you both taking a look at the "creator economy" suggestion and providing that source! As for Fansly, I am open to whatever the community decides. In my draft, I only briefly addressed reasons to remove it, so thought I would go into more detail behind my reasoning here. My main concern is that it just doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to understanding OnlyFans, but if editors ultimately decide that it's better to keep it, I will drop the subject. AG at OnlyFans (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bilorv and STEMinfo:, while the discussion is still going on related to the Fansly content, would one of you be willing to add "creator economy" to the infobox? It seems like we were all in agreement on adding that. Because of my COI I don't want to make any direct edits to the article. AG at OnlyFans (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Using the TIME source, I've added a sentence in the body (albeit perhaps in a clunky way) and that justifies adding the description in the infobox. — Bilorv (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! AG at OnlyFans (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

"Primarily used by" request

Hi editors, I had another request to follow up on the changes made by Bilorv after I posted my draft. One of Bilorv's criticisms of the draft was that it diminished OnlyFans' connection to sex work. This wasn't my intention – as a company, OnlyFans is proud to be a place where sex workers and adult content creators can publish their content – but I don't think that the way the connection between OnlyFans and sex work is portrayed in a couple of spots in this article is accurate or supported by reliable sources. My intention with the draft was to try to stick to the sources as closely as possible based on my reading of WP:VERIFY and WP:RS.

That brings me to my request: there are two sentences which say that OnlyFans is mainly used by sex workers to produce pornography, one in the opening paragraph of the introduction and one in the second paragraph of the Company overview section. I propose removing the words "primarily" and "mainly", respectively, and replacing the phrasing with "popular with". It would look like this:

• The service is used primarily by popular with sex workers who produce pornography, but it also hosts the work of other content creators, such as physical fitness experts and musicians.
• OnlyFans is mainly used by popular with pornographic creators, both amateur and professional, but it also has a market with other content creators—including chefs, fitness trainers, and musicians.

It's perfectly accurate to say that pornographic creators publish their content on OnlyFans, but the sources used in the article don't specifically verify that adult content creators are the primary creator base.

In both sentences, the claim is cited to this Dazed article, but the article never makes this claim at any point. The closest it gets to making that claim is in the third paragraph, where it says, "An increasingly popular alternative, however, is OnlyFans, which operates a subscription model not unlike Patreon; users can sign up to become 'fans' of sex workers and porn creators, paying a regular monthly fee for a slow but steady influx of content. It’s worth noting that it’s a general site – fitness bloggers, wellness gurus and dieticians all share online space with porn stars – and the exact number of users is difficult to track down." (emphasis mine). The source being used here seems to specifically refute the notion that OnlyFans is primarily used by sex workers, and only specifically claims it is popular with sex workers.

In the Company overview section, the claim is cited to both the Dazed article and The New York Times, but the Times doesn't make any claims about what creators are primarily creating; the article focuses on the sex work aspect of OnlyFans, yes, but does not say that OnlyFans is primarily a sex work platform.

For what it's worth, the "popular with" phrasing used to be in the article as well, and was changed on August 11, 2022.

Again, my request here is to change a word from those two sentences as noted above to make the article more accurate by sticking with what reliable sources specifically verify. Please let me know what you think. AG at OnlyFans (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe that sources in the article do verify the phrase "used primarily by". The first two I checked after Dazed say:

The subscription site OnlyFans, known for its adult content ... (BBC)

OnlyFans bills itself as a content-subscription service for influencers and creators to directly monetize their content. But historically, it’s primarily been known as a platform for adult-content creators ([4])

Instead of making the change described, I've changed the inline citations. I've left the Dazed source there just because it's not used elsewhere. — Bilorv (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I appreciate your quick response! I took a look at those two sources and I'm not sure either directly supports the statement that OnlyFans is primarily used by sex workers.

In the BBC source, it says that OnlyFans is "known for its adult content" and that it is "best known for pornography" but what OnlyFans is known for and who are its primary content creators are separate things, so I don't think that directly supports the statement that OnlyFans is primarily used by sex workers. I think it would support "popular with", though.

The Rolling Stone source directly contradicts the statement with this quote: “The top content creators on there are no longer sex workers but celebrities/YouTubers,” says Mrs. Hell, a model and dominatrix.

The Dazed source also contradicts the statement: "It’s worth noting that it’s a general site – fitness bloggers, wellness gurus and dieticians all share online space with porn stars – and the exact number of users is difficult to track down."

My goal here is to make the article as accurate as possible and I think that the phrase "primarily used by" makes the article less accurate overall. AG at OnlyFans (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Forensic News request

Hi editors, I had a request related to the Data security section. The last two sentences are sourced to Forensic News, an outlet that I'm not sure meets the standards for a reliable source, particularly for the kind of claims made in the first sentence:

• In August 2020, Forensic News reported that the company was facing multiple allegations of fraud and theft after content creators and users said they had money stolen from their accounts.

These are serious (and false) allegations, and if they had merit, they would be in other outlets which more clearly meet WP:RS, but this site is the only place I've seen these allegations being made. Even within the FN article, the allegations are sourced almost entirely to anonymous sources in the article. I don't think this sentence should be in the article without a much stronger, clearly reliable source to support it. The content was also added to the OnlyFans article by a user with a declared COI with regard to Forensic News.

Additionally, the second sentence of that paragraph–"Radvinsky's previous business ventures were flagged by banks for indicators of money laundering."-has nothing to do with OnlyFans. It's not relevant to this article, but would be to Radvinsky's article. Can someone remove that sentence for not being relevant? Please let me know what you think! AG at OnlyFans (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

What makes you think the Forensic News piece is not reliable in context? Both co-authors (Stedman, Pierce) are journalists who've written for other more widely known, reliable publications (here's Stedman speaking at a journalist conference with some reputable organisations backing it about facing a SLAPP suit at Forensic News). The source itself is quoted in The Verge (RSP entry), which I've found to be very reliable. And it's no shock that the sources are anonymous given the subject matter, nor is that a sign of bad journalism.

Ultimately I'm not happy with either the COI nature of the edits first adding the content or asking for its removal, but I've tried my best to look at this independently.

I don't like how we summarised the piece, with "fraud and theft" (I know the headline says this, but headlines of any publication are not reliable and typically written by editors rather than journalists). So I've made this change. — Bilorv (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Thank you for taking a look. I will let the matter drop. AG at OnlyFans (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Bhad Bhabie

Should Bhad Bhabie be mentioned on this page? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion yes, which is why she is mentioned. The Billboard coverage is pretty significant. — Bilorv (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Good to know. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)