If the missiles are that cheap, they can't power a Military Industrial Complex that operates as a conveyor belt to transfer tax money paid disproportionately by the poor into the accounts of corporate oligarchs. Think, China, think!

Republicans Before MAGA: Tyranny and government overreach are bad!
MAGA Republicans Now: If it's alright for China, it's alright for us - as long as our cult leader is the one in power

Money: the more you have, the more you need.

Why was this downmodded? It's seems completely accurate and relevant to me.

Thank you, U.S. government, for liberating me from the tyranny of choice!

I never said, nor implied, that it wasn't. That doesn't mean that we can't apply some social pressure to dissuade young, impressionable people from rushing into regrettable situations.

That's a strawman argument. I never even implied this behavior should be illegal because that is not at all what I believe. Instead, I'd like society to take a broad view of how it impacts individuals' choices and act accordingly. If people who promote this behavior have a harder time making and keeping friends due to their actions, that would be enough to dissuade many people from engaging in the behavior. Society can gently shape behavior without resorting to coercion via laws.

The ruthless selfishness of many billionaires and a certain POTUS are far more deserving of the term 'moral decay' than what goes on on OF

Perhaps, but they're certainly not mutually exclusive.

If you're looking for a saint, he probably ain't it.

I'm not looking for a saint. They're few in number, and although they're extremely impressive as individuals, the aggregate behavior of society has much more impact. OnlyFans convinced many young people who otherwise would not have produced adult content to do so and many of them go on to regret that.

He just seems better than several others.

This whole thread is rife with moral relativism.

The convenience of OnlyFans also contributed to encouraging many people to produce adult content who would not have otherwise considered doing so. And many of those people have gone on to regret it.

Compare his choices to Elon Musk's

That's moral relativism. If a person chooses to set the bar that low, then that's on them, but it doesn't exactly create a very impressive result.

And what is the blemish you refer to?

Being part of an entity that encourages people, most of whom are females who are barely adults in the eyes of the law, to permanently sell their dignity so that OnlyFans can get a piece of the profit.

Compared to other adult streaming sites, isn't OnlyFans MORE respectable and less a blemish? Isn't that the whole point, enabling individual creators control over their own content and profit?

More moral relativism. And it's still exploitative, it just changed the model of exploitation. The old model exploited a small number of people to a very large extent. The new model reduces the amount of exploitation but spreads it over a much larger population.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that OnlyFans was about reducing corporate exploitation of streaming models.

It was about increasing the equity of its founders and shareholders. It did that, in part, by marketing itself as being less exploitative than the alternatives as a means to that end.

While that's certainly true, it's also certainly a rationalization and could be applied to every industry that services unsavory behaviors, such as gambling and drugs. And convenience certainly has an effect on demand, so if most people chose not to service these industries, the demand wouldn't be quite as mainstream.

I know that there will be people who say that if he didn't own it, someone else would, but why put that blemish on your own reputation? I'm certainly not saying he deserved what happened, but I just wish he had made more respectable choices in life.

In the early days, there was no app store. Only pre-installed Apple apps, and Jobs intended for devs to create web-based apps. No joke.

I remember. Then when the App Store came out and Apple could get a 30% cut of every app sale, he said that web-based apps were inferior because they lacked a cohesive appearance/behavior and their performance was limited compared to native apps.

In the early days of the App Store, they were quite strict about restricting any apps that competed with their own (ex. Mail and Safari).

That's also true, but since those apps already existed, you knew you were taking a chance by implementing an application that competes with one from Apple. In the case I was talking about, developers felt like their app was safe since it didn't compete with an existing app from Apple until Apple comes along later and blindsides them with competition.

That doesn't seem all that different.

The difference is that: the market is now more entrenched, so the competition is more stiff and at any point Apple may come out of nowhere and start competing with their own third-party developers.

TFA says Musi made over $100M in a year. Though I disagree with their rules and behavior (the risk), the reward has always seemed worth it for those that succeed even a bit, which is probably why there hasn't been a bigger uprising / boycott / exodus / reaction of some sort.

I've never heard of that app, but it sounds like it's far more successful than most. That means there are many apps that struggle to get anywhere and the ones that are successful can be delisted at Apple's whim. I'm not stating that to challenge the validity of the court's decision, I'm just recognizing the extra risks third-party developers are currently up against and questioning if it's still worth it.

I don't understand the mindset of getting involved in the iOS app market today. It made more sense in the early days but now the market is highly entrenched and Apple can either delist your app for no reason or release a competing app that doesn't have the usual restrictions of third-party developers. The risk to reward ratio seems to have drifted way too far.