Human trafficking is a horrific scourge, especially when children are the product. Like all porn and prostitution venues, OnlyFans has become a profit center for human traffickers, including of children.
"Aaron was 17 when he started making videos on the site with his girlfriend in Nevada, US.
"According to his friend Jordan, Aaron didn't have his own account, but instead "got sucked into" appearing in explicit videos posted by his girlfriend, Cody, who was a year older than him."
Well, that would explain the content in the videos, I guess.
"Two years ago, the UK government published a proposal to tackle the dangers posed by online content. The Online Safety Bill, announced in May, would see companies fined £18m or 10% of their global turnover if they fail to keep children safe on their platforms."
If the government takes 10% of your revenue, will that end your business? In the USA, federal and state taxes can amount to ~40% of personal income, at least for those that cannot afford offshore tax dodges and the lawyers and accountants necessary to deploy them. Companies like Apple, Google, and now OnlyFans, apparently, notoriously pay much lower taxes, sometimes nothing. According to my calculations and section 1.4, an individual can pay up to 37% of their income in federal taxes, and then more for state and local taxes, while the new minimum tax rate for $B corporations is 15% of their income. Add 10% to that and they still pay less than Americans can be taxed at the federal level.
Is the proposed (seems that it hasn't yet been deployed, and OnlyFans doesn't pay any additional rate for publishing child porn) 10% 'fine' going to discourage OnlyFans from publishing child porn, or is it just cutting the UK in for a portion of the profits? Is there some reason that the UK should not fine OnlyFans all of their revenue for publishing child porn, or even more money than they actually make, something actually punitive for committing the crime of child sex trafficking?
[Edit: Oh yeah, the quote above says 'companies'. Are there other companies kicking down to the UK for big pimping little kids?]
Maybe Canada can start paying doctors that refer patients to the MAID (Medical Assistance In Dying) program a percentage of the money they save Canada on health care and welfare payments to poor, unhappy, or ill citizens? Maybe doctors could have a referral code suicidal patients could use to get some free oxies, a six pack, or a donut to savor before dying? They're a Crown colony, and King Sausage Fingers should be getting his fat fingers in that pie too, eh? Actually, I recall there are lots of accusations the Crown had it's fingers in many children's pies.
I note that if only OnlyFans 'models' of age are raking simps on the site, the UK only gets regular corporate taxes from the company, which, as many multinational corporations have demonstrated, can be an actual pittance compared to their global revenues, but if children are being sexually abused then the government gets a fat, flat 10% of that revenue, a veritable gold mine during troubled economic times. Maybe the UK could provide some incentive to Middle Schools, or even elementary schools, to get their students involved, extra Play Dough or Happy Meals. Who knows, maybe they'd be able to spend more on fancy hotels and gourmet meals for illegal immigrants and increase diversity more, spreading the love the more they spread little legs! I get Yuval Noah Harari vibes. I'd bet the globalist WEF has been busy training it's Young Global Leaders to create such profit centers. Instead of drugging citizens and letting them play video games for UBI, this way 'useless eater' kids generate money for a whole industry employing immigrants already skilled in the trade and bring in valuable revenue. I mean, from their perspective, this is all win. Lemons, lemonade, and all that, and Sunak and Braverman have strong ties to that community already.
It's really obvious just how dedicated the governments of the West are to the well being and happiness of their citizens, isn't it? John Carr, secretary of the Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety, had this to say.
"...it's "a bit rich" of the government to blame companies themselves.
"In a sense, the real culprit here is the government for not having acted sooner and that's why the prospect of three, four years further delay is [itself] completely unacceptable," he added."
So, the UK seems to be aiming for getting this revenue sharing plan in place only 5 or 6 years after proposing it. They'd better hurry or some of their revenue vectors might age out, maybe even some who hadn't been born yet when it was proposed. Since this article is from 2021, maybe the UK has started getting a cut? Anyone from the UK can let me know? I don't know anything about OnlyFans, and though I had a search I couldn't find any followup articles, so I have no idea how this turned out.
I myself was quite surprised to see the BBC point out that this is part of the 'new normal' brought to us by Pfizer!
"The pandemic has transformed many people's online lives in ways they might never have imagined.
"But the consequences of children sharing explicit images - especially when the content could be leaked - may continue to haunt them for a long time to come."
And that's how the BBC ends it's article on OnlyFans sharing revenue with the UK for publishing child pornography. It's a consequence of the plandemic that could be haunting, especially if the super secure OF site leaks pictures of children being sexually trafficked. Oddly, Secretary Carr mentioned it had already been 2 years since the proposal was made, which puts it in 2019, a year before the plandemic even became public. How prophetic!
That darn virus! Stupid pangolins and bats! I'm haunted already. What about you?
It's always been my opinion that certain forms of payment to the government - things like fines or permit fees, is a way of saying that the government is OK with someone committing a crime or pursuing a permitted activity, but that the government wants a piece of the action. $500 fine for parking in front of a fire hydrant? Don't worry, it's OK - just pay the government it's fair share. Dump 100 zillion gallons of oil into formerly pristine Alaska? No problem, just cut the government in on it. You say that you're poor and have nothing to cut the government in upon? Welp. Jail for you, matey.
You are absolutely correct, and it is remarkable to me that I have not previously understood that fact.
Thanks!
Human trafficking is a terrible offense, we should decease from it.
Yes. Do you think the UK getting 10% of the revenue from companies publishing child pornography will decrease it, or will it create incentives for the UK to increase it?
Thanks!
I think 10% revenue will increase it
I agree, and I think that's why the UK government proposed that 'solution' that is no solution at all, but a way for government to profit from sexually trafficking the children of their citizens. I think it's a terrible crime, and should not be permitted. Corporations can't be hanged for crimes, but the people claiming to be acting on the behalf of corporations can, and corporations can be stripped of assets that investors fund them with expecting to profit from child sex trafficking, removing the profit motive from such investments, and that money can go not to governments, that might give them a financial incentive to allow more such corporations to be formed by investors, but to the victims, the children trafficked, enabling them to prosper and rise up out of their desperate circumstances. Government agents that encourage such 'solutions' can also be hanged, because they are vile criminals that would profit from harming children whom they are supposed to be defending, and that would serve as a warning to any other madmen that might want to commit such crimes that they will not be tolerated.
I hope very much that is what actually happens.
Dear @valued-customer !
Are you saying that the current UK government allows the production and sale of child pornography?😲
In the world I live in, there is US$3,500 fine for trafficking in child prostitution and child pornography.
I had to pay a fine of US$2,500 for defamation and insult after calling a perverted man who showed his nude photos to minors a psychopath.😂
Defamation and insults
So, My compatriots must turn a blind eye to illegal and inhumane acts.
Even if I say these things to foreigners like you, I can be punished.😔
I won't be able to object even if you call me a coward!🤣
I will state that such legal imprudence does aggravate me, but very clearly less than it does you. Defending your community is heroic, not cowardly.
Sadly, I erred in the passage you quote above, citing the Guardian rather than the BBC, which I have since rectified. In the paragraph where I discuss the Crown getting a share of the revenue, I link https://stateofthenation.co/?p=24229, which I spent some hours seeking to find false claims at. However, to my great shock, despite the scurrilous nature of the claims regarding the activities of the royal family, I was not able to disprove a single specific event.
Given that failure - and I do invite anyone to share any evidence that disproves any of the claims at that site - I must note that revenue sharing from an endeavor is well known to create increased support for that endeavor. I conclude that OF sharing an additional 10% of it's revenue when it is shown to insufficiently prevent children from being published in pornography on the site is a kickback to the UK, and not some punitive fine, but graft that creates a mutual profit motive to publish child pornography for both OF and the UK.
That certainly seems to be the intent of the proposed 10% revenue sharing 'fine' for publishing child pornography to me. I also note that several times in the article, people mention 'companies', plural. Not just OF then, but multiple child pornographers are covered by this proposed legislation. That appears to me to suggest this is an attempt by the UK to create a child pornography industry, and not just one company that provides 10% of it's revenues to the UK.
I am quite outraged at the barely concealed profiteering motive of the UK for proposing such a revenue based fine, that very obviously enables child pornography publishers to prosper with a combined tax and fine rate that is lower than American workers pay just in federal taxes on their wages. It would be more profitable for a ditch digger or a McDonalds worker to publish child pornography in the UK than to do honest work, or at least they'd get to keep a larger percentage of their earnings if they did.
It is horrific and shameful.
Thanks!
Congratulations @valued-customer! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 17000 replies.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP