←back to thread

A new law in Sweden makes it illegal to buy custom adult content

(www.euronews.com)
84 points diggan | 1 comments | 05 Jul 25 18:45 UTC | HN request time: 0.216s | source
Show context
ilaksh ◴[05 Jul 25 20:25 UTC] No.44475275[source]▶
Perspectives on this may shift as AI video generation continues to improve. Also I think this intersects with the efficacy of the country's social safety net. What is that like in Sweden?
replies(2): >>44475300 #>>44475474 #
standardUser ◴[05 Jul 25 20:28 UTC] No.44475300[source]▶
That's a foreign perspective to a lot of Americans - that needing to "resort" to some activity to support yourself is seen as a critique or failure of what is supposed to be an equitable system in a wealthy nation.

In the US, "resorting" to something to make money is Plan A, B and C.

replies(1): >>44475485 #
Aurornis ◴[05 Jul 25 20:57 UTC] No.44475485[source]▶
> In the US, "resorting" to something to make money is Plan A, B and C.

The idea of “resorting to OnlyFans” to support yourself is a myth, regardless of the country.

OnlyFans isn’t a platform where anyone can sign up and start making a lot of money. The median creator maxes out at a little over a thousand dollars in a year from what I recall.

Only a very few creators collect a lot of money. It’s similar to other social platforms where the majority of content creators get very little interaction.

So this idea that people are “resorting to OnlyFans” to support themselves isn’t supported by the realities of the data and the payouts.

replies(1): >>44475540 #
standardUser ◴[05 Jul 25 21:06 UTC] No.44475540[source]▶
I know plenty of people personally who have supplemented their income with OnlyFans and other types of sex work, but thanks for the lecture.
replies(1): >>44475585 #
oezi ◴[05 Jul 25 21:12 UTC] No.44475585[source]▶
And do you want to live in a society which permits/encourages/requires this?

Do you think it is possible to create a society where people don't need something like OF to supplement their income.

replies(3): >>44475632 #>>44475638 #>>44476369 #
1. init2null ◴[05 Jul 25 23:25 UTC] No.44476369[source]▶
Permits? Bear in mind that many people just like getting naked online for an appreciative audience for free. Should that be permitted? This creeps toward a puritanical perspective and is just as claustrophobic. Sometimes the line between preventing financial incentive and preventing immorality blurs.