MFC banning date raffles

[Wolf_3_5_9]

WIth the exception of Twitter, the TOS of almost all services already prohibited adult content. For example here is the first item in Snapchat's community guidelines.



Has Sanpchat shut down models accounts?. Yes. Is it a majority?. Not even close, there is only one model out of roughly a dozen Snapchats I follow that was shut down and her non-nude tease account was left intact. Snapchat faces far bigger legal issues, with child porn law with teens sending nude snaps to each other.

The big difference with FOSTA is that it ends the protection given to website/service operators by section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. That Act protected the liability of the website for illegal posts made by users of the site. FOSTA puts an end to that. That’s why people are watching what companies will do. Before FOSTA a model could breach the TOS and it really wouldn’t affect Snapchat legally. If a person Snapped child porn, the user would get arrested/punished, not Snapchat. FOSTA will permit the government to fine/arrest Snapchat operators for content that its users put up that is promoting prostitution and/or trafficking.

 

[JickyJuly]

FOSTA will permit the government to fine/arrest Snapchat operators for content that its users put up that is promoting prostitution and/or trafficking.

I wonder how far that can reach really? Does someone have to identify as a sex worker for a platform to be liable when they use it for prostitution? Or... like if some dude DMs a girl and says "hey, I'll buy you a fancy purse and some tacos if you let me get some" and she agrees is the platform liable there as well? Or does it only count as prostitution if the woman does the propositioning? This whole thing seems weirdly difficult to enforce, damaging to private companies and based on the first two is probably not supported by our constitution.

 

[dark_mermaid]

No I've done many. Can you explain why it shouldn't be allowed? I buy want item, fill it with content, raffle it. I've also talked off my artwork, photos, mugs etc. It kind of upset me to read that you think that's something bad?

This reads like you personalize the items though. That's okay, just the same as worn panties. The value comes from what you do with it to make it unique but just normal, vanilla phones and watches look like a casino to me. I saw some girls offering cookies, that's cool too. Hard to draw a line somehow. And I'm still amazed by all the date offers, went through the top 20 of Miss MFC yesterday and found just two that don't offer it.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

The big difference with FOSTA is that it ends the protection given to website/service operators by section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. That Act protected the liability of the website for illegal posts made by users of the site. FOSTA puts an end to that. That’s why people are watching what companies will do. Before FOSTA a model could breach the TOS and it really wouldn’t affect Snapchat legally. If a person Snapped child porn, the user would get arrested/punished, not Snapchat. FOSTA will permit the government to fine/arrest Snapchat operators for content that its users put up that is promoting prostitution and/or trafficking.

I've heard that on social media also. However, when I actually read the law my interpretation doesn't jive with this at all. Here is the text of the law, the whole law is quite short barely over a page and certainly worth the 10 minutes to read before getting all upset about it. I suspect that 99% of the people opining on it haven't actually read it

Let's look at two key elements.

Ҥ 2421A. Promotion or facilitation of prostitution and reckless disregard of sex trafficking

(a) In General.—Whoever, using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, owns, manages, or operates an interactive computer service (as such term is defined in defined in section 230(f) the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f))), or conspires or attempts to do so, with the intent to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

A couple of keywords "intent to promote" It is hard to argue that camsite where only a minority of models ever meet members (and even tinier percentage of members) outside a convention is an interactive computer service that is intended to facilitates prostitution.

The other key phrase is "prostitution of another person.". Now this is a bit ambiguous, but I interpret as a model offers a sexy date night for 20,000 tokens. MFC is off the hook. On the other hand, if there are Eastern European studio offers a sexy date for 20,000 tokens for your choice of beautiful women that sounds more like a pimping or sex trafficking operation and they wouldn't be protected.

Finally, let's look at this clause that was inserted at the request of Google and Facebook and cause them drop their opposition.

(4) The term ‘participation in a venture’ means knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating a violation of subsection (a)(1).”.

The term "knowingly" sets the bar for prosecution quite high, yes it is lower than blanket exemption that section 230 offers. But section 230 exemption already excludes intellectual property for example.

I don't know about you but if a studio in developing country is pimping out their camgirls, and that studio is reported to MFC, or CB etc. I want the camsite to kick the studio of their platform, and if they knowingly turn a blind eye, I'm fine with them being criminally prosecuted.

IANAL, so if others want to point to sections of the law as written (not as discussed in TeenVogue) that disagree with my interpretation please do so.

 

[Wolf_3_5_9]

I've heard that on social media also. However, when I actually read the law my interpretation doesn't jive with this at all. Here is the text of the law, the whole law is quite short barely over a page and certainly worth the 10 minutes to read before getting all upset about it. I suspect that 99% of the people opining on it haven't actually read it

Let's look at two key elements.



A couple of keywords "intent to promote" It is hard to argue that camsite where only a minority of models ever meet members (and even tinier percentage of members) outside a convention is an interactive computer service that is intended to facilitates prostitution.

The other key phrase is "prostitution of another person.". Now this is a bit ambiguous, but I interpret as a model offers a sexy date night for 20,000 tokens. MFC is off the hook. On the other hand, if there are Eastern European studio offers a sexy date for 20,000 tokens for your choice of beautiful women that sounds more like a pimping or sex trafficking operation and they wouldn't be protected.

Finally, let's look at this clause that was inserted at the request of Google and Facebook and cause them drop their opposition.


The term "knowingly" sets the bar for prosecution quite high, yes it is lower than blanket exemption that section 230 offers. But section 230 exemption already excludes intellectual property for example.

I don't know about you but if a studio in developing country is pimping out their camgirls, and that studio is reported to MFC, or CB etc. I want the camsite to kick the studio of their platform, and if they knowingly turn a blind eye, I'm fine with them being criminally prosecuted.

IANAL, so if others want to point to sections of the law as written (not as discussed in TeenVogue) that disagree with my interpretation please do so.

I did actually read it multiple times over. And I’m not a lawyer by any means but I do agree with you on many points. But I think the point is that the law could be interpreted/stretched by ambitious Attorneys General to at least bring complaints/cases against many websites. So that’s why, as another person pointed out before, that they’re more likely to just ban adult content altogether so that it both saves on attorney fees and also saves on operation costs of having to monitor/moderate content.

It’s telling that even though this law specifically states “It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (a), or subsection (b)(1) where the defendant proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the promotion or facilitation of prostitution is legal in the jurisdiction where the promotion or facilitation was targeted.” that Craigslist still deleted the personals section from their Las Vegas page.

 

[cammingcouple]

I've heard that on social media also. However, when I actually read the law my interpretation doesn't jive with this at all. Here is the text of the law, the whole law is quite short barely over a page and certainly worth the 10 minutes to read before getting all upset about it. I suspect that 99% of the people opining on it haven't actually read it

Let's look at two key elements.



A couple of keywords "intent to promote" It is hard to argue that camsite where only a minority of models ever meet members (and even tinier percentage of members) outside a convention is an interactive computer service that is intended to facilitates prostitution.

The other key phrase is "prostitution of another person.". Now this is a bit ambiguous, but I interpret as a model offers a sexy date night for 20,000 tokens. MFC is off the hook. On the other hand, if there are Eastern European studio offers a sexy date for 20,000 tokens for your choice of beautiful women that sounds more like a pimping or sex trafficking operation and they wouldn't be protected.

Finally, let's look at this clause that was inserted at the request of Google and Facebook and cause them drop their opposition.


The term "knowingly" sets the bar for prosecution quite high, yes it is lower than blanket exemption that section 230 offers. But section 230 exemption already excludes intellectual property for example.

I don't know about you but if a studio in developing country is pimping out their camgirls, and that studio is reported to MFC, or CB etc. I want the camsite to kick the studio of their platform, and if they knowingly turn a blind eye, I'm fine with them being criminally prosecuted.

IANAL, so if others want to point to sections of the law as written (not as discussed in TeenVogue) that disagree with my interpretation please do so.

Whether your interpretation is right or wrong may not matter since it's somewhat ambiguous. We saw this with the UIGEA. The UIGEA didn't make online gambling illegal. What it did do is make it illegal to process transactions related to illegal gambling. However, the UIGEA itself didn't define what illegal gambling was. Instead, that was defined by the wire act of 1961. What constituted illegal gambling depended on who you asked within the government. Those opposed to online gambling and the DOJ under the bush administration claimed it did fall under the wire act. However, that was in direct opposition of the ruling by the US Fifth circuit court of appeals, which ruled that the wire act only applied to sports betting. So the sites that didn't get involved in sports betting, such as pokerstars, were never really violating the law and processing transactions for them wasn't really illegal. When the banks asked for clarification from the government on what constitutes illegal gambling, the government pretty much responded with "We can't tell you and aren't really sure, but if we decide it is, we will prosecute you". Due to the ambiguity, the banks blocked any and all transactions from all forms of internet gambling. They weren't going to take any chances since that isn't their core business. Now you might be wondering why the sites eventually got shut down in 2011 if it wasn't illegal. That's because after the UIGEA went into effect, many financial laws were broken in order to enable people to continue getting money on/off the sites. Everything from money laundering to mislabeling transactions. The UIGEA pretty much forced them to break the law in order to stay in business.

There's a lot of similarities there with FOSTA IMO. I think you're already seeing some of the same things happening there with sites like craigslist pulling out of any sort adult content completely. This is why I have concern that it will extend far past sex trafficking. I think many sites will err on the side of caution when it comes to blocking content, just as the banks did with the UIGEA.

 

[cammingcouple]

Another thing to add in the context of the original post, according to the most recent DOJ stance under Obama, the wire act only applies to sports betting (see: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0036.htm). Thus, raffles would not be considered illegal internet gambling and would not fall under the UIGEA.

I don't if this has changed under Trump.

 

[Mfc_anon]

Whether your interpretation is right or wrong may not matter since it's somewhat ambiguous. We saw this with the UIGEA. The UIGEA didn't make online gambling illegal. What it did do is make it illegal to process transactions related to illegal gambling. However, the UIGEA itself didn't define what illegal gambling was. Instead, that was defined by the wire act of 1961. What constituted illegal gambling depended on who you asked within the government. Those opposed to online gambling and the DOJ under the bush administration claimed it did fall under the wire act. However, that was in direct opposition of the ruling by the US Fifth circuit court of appeals, which ruled that the wire act only applied to sports betting. So the sites that didn't get involved in sports betting, such as pokerstars, were never really violating the law and processing transactions for them wasn't really illegal. When the banks asked for clarification from the government on what constitutes illegal gambling, the government pretty much responded with "We can't tell you and aren't really sure, but if we decide it is, we will prosecute you". Due to the ambiguity, the banks blocked any and all transactions from all forms of internet gambling. They weren't going to take any chances since that isn't their core business. Now you might be wondering why the sites eventually got shut down in 2011 if it wasn't illegal. That's because after the UIGEA went into effect, many financial laws were broken in order to enable people to continue getting money on/off the sites. Everything from money laundering to mislabeling transactions. The UIGEA pretty much forced them to break the law in order to stay in business.

There's a lot of similarities there with FOSTA IMO. I think you're already seeing some of the same things happening there with sites like craigslist pulling out of any sort adult content completely. This is why I have concern that it will extend far past sex trafficking. I think many sites will err on the side of caution when it comes to blocking content, just as the banks did with the UIGEA.

Although none of us can really know the future, I stand by my prediction that the golden age of cam modeling may be behind us. And by that I mean, cam modeling will still exist but everyone should expect to take a huge pay cut. The government has just entered regulating the sex work industry in a large way and not only will businesses not related to sex work completely shy away from any dealings with sex workers, cam sites will probably have higher operating costs just to ensure they are not breaking the law.

 

[cammingcouple]

Although none of us can really know the future, I stand by my prediction that the golden age of cam modeling may be behind us. And by that I mean, cam modeling will still exist but everyone should expect to take a huge pay cut. The government has just entered regulating the sex work industry in a large way and not only will businesses not related to sex work completely shy away from any dealings with sex workers, cam sites will probably have higher operating costs just to ensure they are not breaking the law.

Exactly what happened to online poker post UIGEA. Making money became much, much more difficult after that passed.

That said, I can see scenarios where many cam models could benefit from it. That scenario would be if there's a crackdown on a lot of the studios in countries like romania. I would tend to think those would be the highest risk in terms of the possibility of sex trafficking occurring, or maybe I'm just being ignorant. I don't know. Obviously, not good for studio models, but the independent models would benefit from that. The other potential benefit would be if it did actually help curb prostitution, those guys might spend their money elsewhere, such as camsites.

 

[LaceyRoyce]

This reads like you personalize the items though. That's okay, just the same as worn panties. The value comes from what you do with it to make it unique but just normal, vanilla phones and watches look like a casino to me. I saw some girls offering cookies, that's cool too. Hard to draw a line somehow. And I'm still amazed by all the date offers, went through the top 20 of Miss MFC yesterday and found just two that don't offer it.

Why do we need to draw a line.


I'm gonna raffle off a kidney

 

[dark_mermaid]

Why do we need to draw a line.


I'm gonna raffle off a kidney

Which is a highly personalized item.

It's just this feeling that I have, that lotteries for items like a phone are better suited in a casino.

 

[JickyJuly]

Even if a camgirl is raffling off something that you could buy at a dollar store, it's just giving people something to tip for. On token based sites, that's all it takes really. I doubt most members are really at home crossing their fingers to win with every token they drop. And, while I totally understand how this fosta/sesta stuff forced MFC to do away with date raffles, I'm not sure what's so shocking about them either. Most people have met friends or dates from the internet. There are plenty of apps and sites just for that. Guessing that models who actually raffle dates to members without rigging them go about it in a safer way than girls who use Jdate or Tinder. Not sure where the pearl clutching comes in? Has anyone here not met a friend through the internet?

 

[LaceyRoyce]

Which is a highly personalized item.

It's just this feeling that I have, that lotteries for items like a phone are better suited in a casino.

Haha I love how seriously you replied to my kidney thing

I can understand that it might not fit your idea if camming but this industry is about models finding a "gap" and filling it.we are entrepreneurs. Sometimes I notice I just need to give dudes something tangible to tip for.

 

[cammingcouple]

Which is a highly personalized item.

It's just this feeling that I have, that lotteries for items like a phone are better suited in a casino.

Then don't participate in them. If 2 consenting adults want to enter into a voluntary transaction with each other, why is that any of your concern? If a model wants to offer a raffle, and someone wants to purchase a ticket, what's the problem there? There are many people who feel that girls shouldn't take their clothes off for money too. Are their feelings any less legitimate than your feelings on raffles? If we catered to everyone's feelings on what people should or shouldn't do, the world would be an incredibly dull place.

 

[cammingcouple]

Then don't participate in them. If 2 consenting adults want to enter into a voluntary transaction with each other, why is that any of your concern? If a model wants to offer a raffle, and someone wants to purchase a ticket, what's the problem there? There are many people who feel that girls shouldn't take their clothes off for money too. Are their feelings any less legitimate than your feelings on raffles? If we catered to everyone's feelings on what people should or shouldn't do, the world would be an incredibly dull place.

Reread some of your earlier posts. I think I may have misinterpreted where you were coming from with it. If your concern is turning cam sites into a cheesy casino type thing, then that's an understandable standpoint. If it was coming from some sort of "gambling should only be allowed in casinos" from some sort of moralistic standpoint, then I would absolutely disagree.

 

[Mila_]

the golden age of cam modeling may be behind us. And by that I mean, cam modeling will still exist but everyone should expect to take a huge pay cut. The government has just entered regulating the sex work industry in a large way and not only will businesses not related to sex work completely shy away from any dealings with sex workers, cam sites will probably have higher operating costs just to ensure they are not breaking the law.

Can you hook me up with your provider? My crystal ball broke and I need a replacement.

 

[dark_mermaid]

Haha I love how seriously you replied to my kidney thing

I can understand that it might not fit your idea if camming but this industry is about models finding a "gap" and filling it.we are entrepreneurs. Sometimes I notice I just need to give dudes something tangible to tip for.

Haha, but I hope you guessed that it wasn't meant seriously

When I first read about the rule change I felt like mfc might as well have forbidden something like broadcasting from a balloon. A ban, that will barely affect anyone. I saw the word raffle in room topics sometimes but never really looked what was part of it. Now I begin to realize how big this is on mfc and when I saw a very high percentage of the top girls in Miss MFC do date raffles I was just really, really surprised. Looked at some more rooms and wow, so many date offers in raffles or for tokens that I begin to wonder if and how mfc will enforce this new rule and how reactions will be.

 

[AmberCutie]

Haha, but I hope you guessed that it wasn't meant seriously

When I first read about the rule change I felt like mfc might as well have forbidden something like broadcasting from a balloon. A ban, that will barely affect anyone. I saw the word raffle in room topics sometimes but never really looked what was part of it. Now I begin to realize how big this is on mfc and when I saw a very high percentage of the top girls in Miss MFC do date raffles I was just really, really surprised. Looked at some more rooms and wow, so many date offers in raffles or for tokens that I begin to wonder if and how mfc will enforce this new rule and how reactions will be.

I feel like the best way to get a feel for what's happening/the general vibe on the cam site you work at is to go around and watch fellow models and see how they run their room.

I was under the impression you've been a cam model for a while and it's a little surprising you're so out of touch with one of the most discussed things that happen on MFC.

Or are you not on MFC at all? You have no links/icons on your profile here so I forget where you cam.

 

[dark_mermaid]

I'm on chaturbate, i have an mfc account but don't use it right now, because indeed i'm doing now what I should have done earlier, have a good and deep look at it before I try again.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Whether your interpretation is right or wrong may not matter since it's somewhat ambiguous. We saw this with the UIGEA. The UIGEA didn't make online gambling illegal. What it did do is make it illegal to process transactions related to illegal gambling. However, the UIGEA itself didn't define what illegal gambling was. Instead, that was defined by the wire act of 1961. What constituted illegal gambling depended on who you asked within the government. Those opposed to online gambling and the DOJ under the bush administration claimed it did fall under the wire act. However, that was in direct opposition of the ruling by the US Fifth circuit court of appeals, which ruled that the wire act only applied to sports betting. So the sites that didn't get involved in sports betting, such as pokerstars, were never really violating the law and processing transactions for them wasn't really illegal. When the banks asked for clarification from the government on what constitutes illegal gambling, the government pretty much responded with "We can't tell you and aren't really sure, but if we decide it is, we will prosecute you". Due to the ambiguity, the banks blocked any and all transactions from all forms of internet gambling. They weren't going to take any chances since that isn't their core business. Now you might be wondering why the sites eventually got shut down in 2011 if it wasn't illegal. That's because after the UIGEA went into effect, many financial laws were broken in order to enable people to continue getting money on/off the sites. Everything from money laundering to mislabeling transactions. The UIGEA pretty much forced them to break the law in order to stay in business.

There's a lot of similarities there with FOSTA IMO. I think you're already seeing some of the same things happening there with sites like craigslist pulling out of any sort adult content completely. This is why I have concern that it will extend far past sex trafficking. I think many sites will err on the side of caution when it comes to blocking content, just as the banks did with the UIGEA.

I don't really agree with your characterization of UIGEA, but that's pretty much irrelevant for this discussion. Where I completely agree with you is what really killed gambling on the internet is the virtually ironclad enforcement of the banking laws preventing you from taking your money out of a gambling site. It was the classic Hotel California. "You can check out any time you like, But you can never leave!"
Getting money out was just too hard for me.

I think the same thing is true here what the law says or even what the sites TOS state are pretty much irrelevant. All that matter is what is being enforced.

Look at troubles a rule-following cam model would have.

You can't use Snapchat, Google Drive, Dropbox, Mediafire, Skype and lots of others
No accepting Amazon Gift cards for anything
No copyright music in her room
No Charlesbot raffles or any other type of raffle, poker game or blackjack
No pot smoking in most places, no tips for shots for underage models.

Essentially, you'd be limited to doing spanks and flash, while listening to classical music recording decades ago.

But in practice, while some models do get busted, for the most part, you can do all of these things with no consequences.

It remains to be seen how serious MFC is about enforcing the date raffle rule, or can you easily get around by offering a chance to win two concert tickets or dinner gift certficate with the understanding that model won't turn down an invitation to join you. Based on past history, MFC is really only serious about enforcing no men on cam rules and unverified models.

 

[LaceyRoyce]

Haha, but I hope you guessed that it wasn't meant seriously

When I first read about the rule change I felt like mfc might as well have forbidden something like broadcasting from a balloon. A ban, that will barely affect anyone. I saw the word raffle in room topics sometimes but never really looked what was part of it. Now I begin to realize how big this is on mfc and when I saw a very high percentage of the top girls in Miss MFC do date raffles I was just really, really surprised. Looked at some more rooms and wow, so many date offers in raffles or for tokens that I begin to wonder if and how mfc will enforce this new rule and how reactions will be.

yeah no I didnt take it seriously!

MFC is deffinately a different beast than other cam sites. Date raffles are common not just on the top level, but all the way through. Also ticketed meet and greets (i used to have dinner parties in vegas for my members) and selling dates (It's 20k tokens to take me to dinner in my city). For me this rule change means less safety, more misunderstandings.. :/

Raffles are something that are run for physical things, personal things, skypes, snapchats, all manner of things!

 

[JickyJuly]

No accepting Amazon Gift cards for anything

Is this a SESTA thing or just because it's hard to count as income? I always just tally my GC earnings at the end of the year and count them as cash earnings.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Is this a SESTA thing or just because it's hard to count as income? I always just tally my GC earnings at the end of the year and count them as cash earnings.

My you are honest. But it is in their rules. " Gift Cards cannot be reloaded; resold; used for payment outside of www.amazon.com". Obviously, there is a thriving business in doing just this.

 

[JickyJuly]

My you are honest. But it is in their rules. " Gift Cards cannot be reloaded; resold; used for payment outside of www.amazon.com". Obviously, there is a thriving business in doing just this.

Ahh. I never thought about Amazon's feelings on the matter. Hehehe.

 

[sexyvanessa4u]

Even if a camgirl is raffling off something that you could buy at a dollar store, it's just giving people something to tip for. On token based sites, that's all it takes really. I doubt most members are really at home crossing their fingers to win with every token they drop. And, while I totally understand how this fosta/sesta stuff forced MFC to do away with date raffles, I'm not sure what's so shocking about them either. Most people have met friends or dates from the internet. There are plenty of apps and sites just for that. Guessing that models who actually raffle dates to members without rigging them go about it in a safer way than girls who use Jdate or Tinder. Not sure where the pearl clutching comes in? Has anyone here not met a friend through the internet?

Yeah, exactly. It's the thought of liking/supporting a particular model, not necessarily hoping/expecting to win the item. Lots of girls sell cookies/brownies that they bake and ship off to members, and you can buy them way cheaper at a store, but it's the personal touch of the model that counts.

 

[mynameisbob84]

With the exception of Twitter, the TOS of almost all services already prohibited adult content. For example here is the first item in Snapchat's community guidelines.



Has Sanpchat shut down models accounts?. Yes. Is it a majority?. Not even close, there is only one model out of roughly a dozen Snapchats I follow that was shut down and her non-nude tease account was left intact. Snapchat faces far bigger legal issues, with child porn law with teens sending nude snaps to each other.

The valuation of social media platforms is based primarily on their monthly active users and especially on their daily active users. If they clamp down on adult content that hurts those numbers. So companies do have an incentive to turn a blind eye on porn. FOSTA has to go through court battle (applying the law retroactively seems almost certainly unconstitutional) Justice Department guidelines need to be developed. Despite the sky-is-falling hysteria of what might happen, the reason for the law was to make criminal prosecution of sex traffickers easier. That's probably going to be the initial focus. Folks this is the Federal government we are talking about, nothing gets down quickly, especially with incompetent bozos in this administration.

Britain passed the Digital Economy Act, which required age id for all adult website a year ago. In particular for a site like MFC, practically it would require user entering a credit card number to view MFC.
The law was supposed go into effect in April, but it has been delayed again. Bob, you live in the UK have seen any changes to MFC in the UK?. Any UK models impacted by the law?

I hope you're right, sir. And from what I hear, the Digital Economy Act is still coming, but the BBFC is granting an extension for sites to become compliant.

 

[mynameisbob84]

Why do we need to draw a line.


I'm gonna raffle off a kidney

Your kidney, eh? Is it... is it dirty? How many times have you used it? What does... what does it smell like? And how much are raffle tickets?

 

[dark_mermaid]

Even if a camgirl is raffling off something that you could buy at a dollar store, it's just giving people something to tip for. On token based sites, that's all it takes really. I doubt most members are really at home crossing their fingers to win with every token they drop. And, while I totally understand how this fosta/sesta stuff forced MFC to do away with date raffles, I'm not sure what's so shocking about them either. Most people have met friends or dates from the internet. There are plenty of apps and sites just for that. Guessing that models who actually raffle dates to members without rigging them go about it in a safer way than girls who use Jdate or Tinder. Not sure where the pearl clutching comes in? Has anyone here not met a friend through the internet?

I think there is a difference. Using Tinder makes no sense if you don't want to actually meet a person for real. It's a tool specifically made for real interaction.

As a broadcaster (or member) of a camsite this is quite different. At least for me. I don't know, i'm kinda wrapping my mind around it right now. I lost my two biggest tippers when the subject of real meet ups came up and I said "no way". I found some new ones, but still. It's where I drew my line (plus selling inner organs).

And for why it concerns me, well it's an offer with a user demand that i suspect to be quite high but something i will never offer myself. There are things about mfc that i like very much, i'd love to try again one day. I tried, basically offering what I did on cb with some success and have to say I failed quite miserably after the few "new" days on mfc. No one tipped me, so there seems to be a mismatch betwen audience expectation on mfc and my offerings. I'm right now looking more closely at mfc, the blame is on me for not having it done earlier.

This seems to be a tougher subject with more relevance than I thought it would be.

 

[JickyJuly]

And for why it concerns me, well it's an offer with a user demand that i suspect to be quite high but something i will never offer myself.

I agree that Tinder is different, but I brought it up to try to figure out what your concerns were rooted in. If you feared for other models' (or members even) safety, an app like Tinder might also make you worry. I'm a worrier. So, that was my first guess. If your reasoning for finding raffles problematic is simply that it is not something you'd offer, there must be tons of things happening on MFC that you just can't stand. There are girls over there doing all sorts of stuff that most of us can't or won't do. Or looking ways that most of us don't look. Or accessing things plenty of us will not have. Sounds like an exhausting way to look at camming.

 

[dark_mermaid]

In this specific case the concerns are safety and privacy. Sure there are other things that I can't stand on mfc, cb or any other site. I'm totally sure there will be girls who don't like what I do.

I read some old threads and good discussions about the subject of raffles, guess i'm bit late for the party here.