OnlyFans accused of using terrorism database to blacklist rivals — Analysis

OnlyFans was accused of blacklisting social media accounts that promote rivals and having them added to the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism’s (GIFCT), database. It was reported Tuesday.

FanCentro is an alternative website for adult websites. In November, FanCentro launched legal proceedings against Leonid Radvinsky (the owner of OnlyFans) and Fenix Internet LLC LLC (the company that facilitates their payments).

In documents filed in a Florida court, FanCentro alleges adult performers who promoted rival websites to OnlyFans were placed on the GIFCT’s international database, which uses technology to stop the spread of terrorist images by recording a unique digital signature for them, called ‘hashes.’

The database is shared across the forum’s 18 members, including Facebook and Twitter. Each company can flag content that is not in their control to allow them to moderate similar content.

You have successfully claimed the database “manipulated,”FanCentro reports that accounts were disabled and social media content was removed from adult performers, even though it did not contain terrorist content.

FanCentro seeks financial damages for the misuse of the database. They claim it caused a decrease in traffic to OnlyFans’ rivals.

OnlyFans has not yet filed a legal response to FanCentro’s allegations but a spokesperson for the company claimed the accusations have “no merit.”

Surprising victims of online ‘sextortion’ revealed

The UK’s national broadcaster, the BBC, stated on Tuesday that, while not named in the legal filing, Facebook has been issued with a subpoena in the case, compelling it to turn over records.

The subpoena reportedly seeks copies of internal documents from the social media company showing that rivals to OnlyFans were added to its list of so-called Dangerous Individuals or Organizations, as well as any payments from OnlyFans to Facebook’s parent company Meta.

Meta issued a statement declaring that “these allegations are without merit and we will address them in the context of the litigation as needed.”

“We are not aware of any evidence to support the theories presented in this lawsuit between two parties with no connection to GIFCT,” a representative for GIFCT said in response to the lawsuit’s claims, adding it is working “to enhance transparency and oversight”Its “hash-sharing database.”

Share this story via social media



Related Articles

Back to top button