this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
205 points (99.5% liked)

Europe

5949 readers
1503 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
federalreverse@feddit.org
poVoq@slrpnk.net
anzo@programming.dev
EuroMod@feddit.org
205
Sweden bans buying OnlyFans content (www.euractiv.com)
submitted 2 days ago by CAVOK@lemmy.world to c/europe@feddit.org
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Sweden's parliament has passed a law banning the purchase of sexual performances for viewing online, including those on platforms like OnlyFans, marking a major update to the country’s sex purchase legislation.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lysol@lemmy.world 62 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

So, to clarify. Sweden has for a very long time a system where buying sex is illegal but selling sex is legal. This is to make sure the man buying is considered criminal and the woman selling a victim. This new ban is just a way to keep it that way online as well.

What becomes illegal is paying for custom personalized performances (because a man can say "I'll give you $1000 if you stick this painful thing up your ass", which can be a difficult request to deny if you are poor), but selling prerecorded stuff will not be banned.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Men (and other genders) are sex workers also. This is not a man/woman thing, this is a power imbalance thing.

[–] lysol@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Fair, but this is kind of a "not all men!!" thing to point out. The vast majority of sex workers are women, the vast majority of people being victims to sex trafficking are women. The vast majority of people paying for sex are men. Just face it.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 22 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

it’s not really a not all men thing… it’s a difference in the thinking: by saying women, you’ve completely ignored gay men, and we have often have a hyper sexual culture and don’t often have issues like domestic violence and abuse represented well

the power imbalance is the important thing - it’s an inherently non-gendered situation, despite the correlation that it mainly effects women… intent is important

[–] trungulox@lemm.ee 1 points 22 hours ago

Also. Buttholes. Everybody’s got a butthole.

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 91 points 2 days ago (2 children)

While viewing and paying for pre-recorded content remains legal, the law targets live, commissioned interactions, which lawmakers argue blur legal and ethical lines.

Interesting distinction they are making there.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 31 points 2 days ago

California has a history of running a porn production industry but disallowing prostitution, which results in the somewhat-bizarre situation where it's illegal to pay someone for sex, but that becomes legal if it is being filmed for an audience to watch.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 37 points 2 days ago

delay == 0.1s

[–] Bob@feddit.org 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In Sweden it’s also legal to sell heroin, but buying it is against the law. /s

[–] threeganzi@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Sweden is one of the strictest countries in Europe when it comes to drugs. Fairly certain selling heroin is very much not legal in Sweden.

On a related note, Sweden has (at least historically) had one of the highest OD death rates despite its strict drug regulation.

Edit: somehow totally missed the /s, but I’ll leave the comment up anyway :)

[–] huppakee@lemm.ee 76 points 2 days ago (4 children)

The title doesn't convey the actual law, thanks for adding description op.

Feels out of character for a Scandinavian country to pass such conservative law.

Belgium actually got social benefits like insurance for people doing sex work (which if you ask me, is work), if I remember correctly.

[–] Mmagnusson@programming.dev 8 points 1 day ago

The Nordics generally fall on the line that sex work is inherently exploitative, which is why buying is illegal but selling sex work is not. This isn't particularily conservative, but is just extending the existing laws surrounding prostitution and sex work to Onlyfans commissions.

[–] PotatoLibre@feddit.it 29 points 2 days ago (6 children)

It's conservative under a certain pov, or progressive for others.

From a femministic pov is a step forward. Sweden started in '99 to criminalize the sex customers and it's been followed from the other Scandinavians and France.

On the other end we've countries like Germany, Switzerland, Nederland or Belgium which works in kinda opposite direction and allow sex workers to the point of being guaranteed social services.

In Sweden they believe that prostitution always happens due to an abuse of power. The prostitute is somehow always forced to sell sex. It's kinda tricky point, it never convinced me 100%.

I believe more that people should be allowed to do what they want with their body, so if someone wants to sell sex, the only things to do is to offer some rules and makes it safe for everyone. It's not surprisingly that countries who cares about safe worker's safety also allow euthanasia.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

From a femministic pov is a step forward.

From a SWERF POV. By far not all the feminisms are sex negative or exclude sex workers.

[–] Distractor@lemm.ee 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

You're missing the point, this law is not anti-sex work. You can be pro sex work and still be in favour of this law.

Legalising prostitution doesn't make illegal prostitution go away. On the contrary, by normalising prostitution, the demand increases but the legal (voluntary) supply doesn't. This increased demand is then supplied via increased sex trafficking by crime syndicates. This is a huge problem in the Netherlands that they haven't managed to solve in the 25 years prostitution has been legal.

Even for the legally registered prostitutes, the improvements are limited. Financial exploitation and violence remain rampant.

By decriminalising the prostitutes, the Swedes are effectively providing them with legal protection. By criminalising the buyer, they suppress demand, which reduces sex trafficking, and is the best protection for society as a whole.

As a feminist, I'm a staunch advocate of bodily autonomy and have no issue with sex workers. However, what cost should society accept for their right to provide these services? If for every 10 legal prostitutes, 1 additional person is forced into sexual slavery, is that cost worthwhile to you? How about 1 sex slave for every 5 legal prostitutes? How about a 1 to 2 ratio?

According to this source:

the [Netherlands] government struggles to calculate the number of individuals in its regulated sex trade (numbers range from 6,000 to 30,000)

The law has also failed to curb trafficking, with a reported 5,000 to 8,000 victims each year, two thirds of which for purposes of sexual exploitation

So, best case scenario = 30,000 prostitutes vs 3,333 (5000 x 2/3) sex slaves = 1 slave for every 9 registered prostitutes

Worst case scenario = 6,000 prostitutes vs 5,333 sex slaves = 8 slaves for every 9 registered prostitutes

Now some of these people would have been trafficked anyway, but there is a lot of evidence that trafficking has increased substantially since legalising prostitution.

So, where do you draw the line? Personally, I find the societal cost to be unacceptably high to justify legalisation of prostitution.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 0 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Legalising prostitution doesn’t make illegal prostitution go away.

How many illegal banana vendors are there? How would a banana vendor benefit from turning towards black market operations? Because there's banana plantations around which engage in slave labour, should we outlaw bananas?

On the contrary, by normalising prostitution, the demand increases but the legal (voluntary) supply doesn’t.

Why would demand increase? Why would supply not increase? After all, legal prostitution doesn't make people hornier or lonelier, and legalisation improves workplace conditions.

By decriminalising the prostitutes, the Swedes are effectively providing them with legal protection.

I see, you still haven't read the link. "Come to the police for help and we'll arrest all your clients" is not a good situation to be in if you're trying to make a living. Swedish sex workers are forced to be co-conspirators, they are forced to keep their clients anonymous, or they're out of business. Can't keep records around, can't keep customer information around.

As a feminist, I’m a staunch advocate of bodily autonomy and have no issue with sex workers

Then why are you ignoring what they're saying?

Let's look at your source. Your source:

Furthermore, those in prostitution face abuse and degradation on a daily basis; studies – even from groups that advocate for the decriminalization of the sex trade – find that 90% of women in prostitution have experienced violence at the hands of sex buyers, pimps, or other exploiters.

The source that's from:

The sex workers in this research were asked whether they had experienced violence in the past twelve months and which forms those had been. 60% said they had experienced physical violence, 78% sexual violence, 58% financial-economic violence and 93% social-emotional violence.

And further:

Social-emotional violence as well as other forms of violence often stem from the stigma attached to sex work.

...so not only is your source narrativising, it's right-out bending the truth: That 90% figure is violence inflicted by general society. Among others, SWERFs who ignore their voices. You are engaging in it yourself.

The source of the source then recommends:

  • Make sex workers the center of prostitution policies and address violence against sex workers.
  • Lower the threshold for filing police reports.
  • Decriminalize sex work so that all sex workers have once again access to (labor) laws, thereby reducing the risk of violence.

...all three of them are incompatible with the Swedish model: The Swedes systematically ignore the voices of sex workers, make it harder to seek help from authorities, and they don't have access to usual labour protections, either. In particular (towards the end) they point out that a majority of sex workers in the Netherlands aren't licensed because the licensing regime isn't up to to the task, can't be arsed to go into detail now but I suppose it's stuff like municipalities being allowed to declare prostitution off-limits everywhere within their territory, without giving actual reasoning why that's necessary. Obviously, getting help from the police isn't that easy when you would have to admit that you're not licensed.

I'm sure there's plenty of stuff that the Dutch could do better, their approach to law enforcement is weird overall with police wilfully, and systematically, ignoring law breaches. Like yes it's all good that you're not cracking down on the cannabis trade but maybe then actually legalise and regulate it, don't leave it to criminal gangs?

[–] PotatoLibre@feddit.it 4 points 1 day ago

That laws exists cause femministic pov is strong in the country (we should talk about genders, it's said F just to make things shorter in this discussion). We all knows not all femminists thinks exactly the same stuff, as all the people about all the things in the world.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 17 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

IMO it's fairly understandable for in-person sex work, it has to be fairly hard to navigate that business while avoiding abuse even if you start doing it out of your own free will. But online sex work removes a huge component of what makes in-person sex work so risky, i.e. the physical in-person interaction. IMO, forbidding that as well suggests that the lawmakers not only view sex work as dangerous, but also as immoral.

[–] Rednax@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It is not the physical danger, but the risk of people being manipulated, pressured, or straight up forced into doing it. That can certainly still happen with online content. It may not be the image you have of Onlyfans, but I can't imagine it not happening to some degree.

Exploitation also happens with foreign workers in the farming and logistics industries though. So under the argument they are making, I recommend also closing the entire farming and logistics industries.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 4 points 2 days ago

Wasn't there multiple popular porn formats where it turned out they were human trafficking rings and raped the women for millions of people to view?

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago

That can certainly still happen with online content. It may not be the image you have of Onlyfans, but I can’t imagine it not happening to some degree.

Definitely. It's just a lot less likely.

[–] PotatoLibre@feddit.it 3 points 1 day ago

Yep.

They don't talk on a practical, physical level, it's a matter of power and social acceptance. Sweden refuse the idea of a gender who's subordinate, which is right but creates some turbulences, as you pointed out.

It sounds to me like wanting to fix next year problems other then todays ones. Kinda a long time program.

[–] Distractor@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I agree from a bodily autonomy perspective that everyone should have the right to do what they wish with their bodies. If the sex industry was primarily individuals or small scale brothels, with everything voluntary, then legalising prostitution would make sense. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

The sex industry is huge, with large crime syndicates involved, so legalising prostitution in the Netherlands resulted in higher sex trafficking. Once prostitution was normalised, the demand for services increased but the supply didn't. Human traffickers bring in women to meet the demand and the Netherlands government haven't been able to stop it.

There are a lot of online sources confirming this, including this recent (long) report: Failed Promises: The history of legal prostitution and sex trafficking in the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

[–] PotatoLibre@feddit.it 3 points 1 day ago

Agree.

I don't mean legalizing is the solution to everything. Banning it in Sweden had the same issue, you solve the most visible problem (ex prostitutes on the streets), but some of the prostitution goes underground.

Legalize prostitution sounds like when you legalize the weed. The illegal market doesn't disappear, and since you create a hub, probably it will also grow up.

Problem is, with the prostitution is not really fine, since we are basically talking about a sort of slavery

This signs for me a plus for the Swedish way which point at the future, pushing the scam into the population for that stuff (and fucking even more the incels fucking world).

[–] huppakee@lemm.ee 9 points 2 days ago

Interesting there possibly being a correlation between euthanasia and legal sex work. But it makes sense, as it is both about supporting people to make their own choice. I've always found the people who want to ban things that are dangerous a bit condescending, as if people aren't able to bare the consequences of their choices. But is true that if people have no good options, they will start considering bad options. But by making something illegal, they are not getting better options. Also I don't think making it illegal will stop the people who are willing to force someone into prostitution. Signing some law to prevent unwanted behaviour seems like a easy choice from a political pov. Real problems need real solutions.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org -5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

And Germany became a haven for human trafficking and organized rape, which forced prostitution is.

Among other things when Ukrainians started arriving in Germany there were cases of people disguising to help to snatch women and girls and force them into prostitution as the enforcement of protection against human trafficking remains lackluster in Germany.

[–] LowtierComputer@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Do you have a source on that second statement?

[–] LowtierComputer@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Source?

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Germany

Germany is a European source, point of transit, organization and destination country for women, children, and men subjected to trafficking in persons, specifically forced prostitution and forced labor.[1][2]

The Government of Germany complies with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, but has not implemented European Union recommendations to reduce sexual slavery.[3] Available statistics indicate the majority of convicted labor and sex trafficking offenders were not required to serve time in prison, raising concerns that punishments were inadequate to deter traffickers.[4] According to Eurostat, during 2022 Germany reported the highest number of victims of all EU countries.

https://www.institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Publikationen/Weitere_Publikationen/Summary_Monitoring_Report_Human_Trafficking_in_Germany.pdf

Page 19, 7 Recommendations:

Despite this important progress, considerable efforts are still needed to implement human rights and European standards in the area of trafficking in human beings. This arises in no small degree from the revisions to the EU Anti-Trafficking Direc- tive, which must be implemented rapidly and in full

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2024-001766_EN.html

The Council of the EU has accepted the Commission’s proposal to extend the temporary protection for Ukrainian refugees until March 2026, including access to the labour market and to housing[1]. As of May 2024, Eurostat[2] reported 4.2 million displaced Ukrainians, mainly in Germany and Poland. According to data provided by the Federal Statistical Office in Germany, 70% of refugees are women, and only 14% of them are in employment. German media and NGOs have recently warned about a high number of ‘very young Ukrainian women’ falling victim to human traffickers and ending up in prostitution rings[3], either on the internet or in brothels, owing to a lack of accommodation and employment. There can be little doubt that this prostitution is not voluntary.

Alarm about the increase in sexual exploitation networks involving Ukrainian refugees, including ‘via online platforms’, had already been raised in November 2022, when Valiant Richey of the OSCE[4], said that the DSA[5] was ‘silent on trafficking in human beings’[6].

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The Government of Germany complies with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, but has not implemented European Union recommendations to reduce sexual slavery.[3]

That references an article from 2013, the whole article is generally out of date. What's absolutely true is that Germany is a hub for trafficking in Europe, for the simple reason that it's a hub for anything in Europe that involves transportation: You can hardly go east to west, north to south, without crossing through Germany.

The article also isn't particularily good at distinguishing between sex trafficking and for other purposes. Most of the dates (2009) refer to a time barely past regularisation of prostitution, the criminal statistics in the years following 2002 are full of cases that were only brought to light because operating shady brothels became financially untenable.

Then, important to keep in mind about statistics: German law says that it's illegal to recruit under 21yolds into prostitution. I think it's a good thing, but OTOH someone driving around in the Romanian countryside asking gals whether they want to make money in Germany shouldn't be confused, much less equated, with chained to the radiator type of trafficking, but that's exactly what happens when you just take the "human trafficking" numbers out of the police statistics, both types have the same subheading.

This arises in no small degree from the revisions to the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive, which must be implemented rapidly and in full

The revisions were done July of 2024, the report is from October. No shit Sherlock it can take a couple of months to implement legislation.

The whole thing, the wikipedia article that is not the report, reads like a hitpiece with an agenda... in particular, SWERF. SWERFs also like to ignore any- and everything sex worker unions have to say about this topic (which isn't kind towards the Nordic model), up to including slandering them as "pimp-run".

Most of the sources in the article are also before 2017, which saw a law reform, in particular now there's licensing. Sex worker unions really didn't like that, I don't think it's doing much but OTOH is also not terribly damaging -- lots of professions have some kind of licensing regime. I would have rather seen more investment in street work.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The Wikipedia article refers to the decades after legalisation of prostitution. The recent report from 2024 shows that Germany is still behind the EU standards. I don't know what you mean with "SWERFs". It is a simple matter of fact that in Germany legalisation of prostitution did not come with proper safeguards and helped enable human trafficking.

Also it remains clear that Germany is still lacking behind EU standards. While it is true that it takes time to implement new standards, the EU processes to establish them take years, so the German governments know about these standards since much longer. There is also no prohibition on implementing these before they become official EU standards.

And this brings us back to the problems with digital sex work. While countries can enforce protections against human trafficking in analog spaces, it is much more difficult in digital spaces. The "onlyfans model" in some other country could have traffickers standing outside the video with a gun pointed at them and there is hardly any way to find out. There is no access for street workers or investigators to talk with the people involved. They could be kept in some basement and never see the light of day and the consumers seem rather willfully ignorant to that possibility. As in the example with the "casting couch" trafficker ring, human trafficking is rather happily ignored by the consumers, who ultimately make themselves complicit in heinous crimes.

Sweden is doing the right thing here. It is impossible to regulate that "market" to prevent human trafficking. Thereby the only option is to shut that market down.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don’t know what you mean with “SWERFs

Sex-worker exclusionary radical feminist. TBH not knowing that acronym disqualifies you from discussing the issue.

The “onlyfans model” in some other country could have traffickers standing outside the video with a gun pointed at them and there is hardly any way to find out.

And that doesn't also apply to call centre employees, youtube hosts, news anchors, whatnot?

As in the example with the “casting couch” trafficker ring, human trafficking is rather happily ignored by the consumers,

Ignoring requires knowledge. Consumers are happily unaware of issues, sure, but so are you when it comes to who picked the coffee you're drinking.

I'm all for throwing the book at anyone who traffics people, for whatever reason, sex work included. And the only way to do that, that has actually data behind it and not just "sex work inherently bad" type of ideology, is regulation.

Sweden is doing the right thing here. I

Read this.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Sex-worker exclusionary radical feminist. TBH not knowing that acronym disqualifies you from discussing the issue.

Does this apply to people who are voluntarily or by force engaged in sex work too? This seems more like academic leftists gatekeeping.

And that doesn’t also apply to call centre employees, youtube hosts, news anchors, whatnot?

Who are at a much lower risk of human trafficking, have access to labor unions and workplace protections...

but so are you when it comes to who picked the coffee you’re drinking.

While not perfect, i buy fair trade coffee, which means at least some level of oversight. And picking coffee under exploitative circumstances is terrible, but a different level than being raped for the entertainment of millions of people, where the recordings remain even decades after, if the exploitation can be stopped.

And the only way to do that, that has actually data behind it and not just “sex work inherently bad” type of ideology, is regulation.

Which is much harder in the digital space and cannot be enforced realistically by Sweden. Even if they would create a certification process and do regular workspace inspections, these could only be enforced inside Sweden. And even that is limited by the trivial ease of using VPNs to claim a different location. So the only option is to prohibit that market.

Read this.

Earlier you criticized that i provided a source discussion the situation multiple years ago. Now you provide a source that is from the same time and does not address nor distinguish between analog and digital.

There is a fundamental difference between digital and analog. So the criticism needs to distinguish between these two. You gave the example of street workers yourself.

If you criticise the Swedish ban on buying digital sex work, how do you envision to protect digital sex work from human trafficking, provide access to social work and the like? What is the better alternative?

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago

have access to labor unions and workplace protections…

And Swedish sex workers don't. I rest my case.

Earlier you criticized that i provided a source discussion the situation multiple years ago. Now you provide a source that is from the same time and does not address nor distinguish between analog and digital.

It explains, in detail, how the Swedish model hurts sex workers. The Swedish model didn't change so it's still up to date.

It also goes into detail, and that is something you should really have a look at, how SWERFs systematically deny and undermine the agency of sex workers. For SWERFs it is not possible to choose, out of your own free will, to be a sex worker, so all are victims so all must be ignored if they're saying that sex work should be legal and regulated so they can have a safe working environment.

There is a fundamental difference between digital and analog. So the criticism needs to distinguish between these two. You gave the example of street workers yourself.

I wasn't talking about digital at all but reacted to the claim that Germany wouldn't give a fuck about human trafficking.

So... you're saying that Sweden should completely outlaw porn? At least the procurement of it? Because that'd be the equivalent of what they're doing in the analog space. Then the only people left producing porn would be criminal organisations and I don't think they care much about being kind to the workers.

Prohibition never works when there's demand. It just doesn't, never has, never will, not with alcohol, not with cannabis, not with porn, not with prostitution. Regulation does work.

And just for the record Sweden is just as prudish when it comes to alcohol and cannabis. All they know is abolitionism, and bringing up anything else is politically impossible.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CyberEgg@discuss.tchncs.de 34 points 2 days ago

Feels out of character for a Scandinavian country to pass such conservative law.

Not for Sweden in the context of sex work.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Feels out of character for a Scandinavian country to pass such conservative law.

In Sweden, a bottle of Vodka costs you 18 Euros in alcohol taxes. Plus VAT, plus the actual cost of the vodka. Also you can only buy it at state-run shops.

They're abolitionists and wannabe social engineers up there which is why Swedes go to Denmark to buy booze while Danes go to Germany. And Germans, very occasionally, to Luxembourg but only if you need 98% stuff to make your own liqueur. Luxembourg I think is the odd one out EU-wide when it comes to levying the same tax per ml of ethanol no matter whether it's 40% or pure.

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 20 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (7 children)

Like other censorship efforts, these politicians appear never to have heard of VPNs.

From a purely logical perspective, it isn’t clear how these performers are different from athletes or actors.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Like other censorship efforts, these politicians appear never to have heard of VPNs.

It's not blocking it, just creating legal risk for someone who does purchase OnlyFans stuff from Sweden. I kind of doubt that Swedish law enforcement is going to be actively looking for this, but I suppose that if they're looking into someone for some other reason and there are payments to OnlyFans with a payment service in Sweden, that's probably a way to add more charges.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

It's to use on whistle blowers maybe? Hrrm, Assange hrrm.

[–] Railcar8095@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

VPNs don't hide the payment details to your bank. It's not impossible to hide, but an additional complication

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 1 points 1 day ago

Fair point. Add prepaid cards to the list. :)

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

"Obviously these politicians who outlaw murder have never heard of a gun. I can still easily kill people!"

[–] CaptObvious@literature.cafe 2 points 1 day ago

Your point?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Wow I thought you were cool Sweden :/

[–] PotatoLibre@feddit.it 29 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Wait until you discover their politics about drugs.

[–] guy@piefed.social 6 points 1 day ago

🤫 we don't discuss that or we're branded as addicts

[–] orochi02@feddit.org 4 points 2 days ago

idc about sex sites but onlyfans gives me brainrot. good one sweden. shame for the other sites that are affected i guess?

load more comments
view more: next ›