Just before the turn of the century, Sweden changed the way the world thinks about prostitution thanks to a legal experiment. Instead of criminalizing the sale of sex, the new law criminalized the purchase of sex. It may sound like semantics, but it was a crucial difference.

The ban on the purchase of sexual services (as opposed to the sale of said services) is based on the principle that it is “shameful and unacceptable that, in a gender equal society, men obtain casual sexual relations with women in return for payment.”

This has since become known as the “The Nordic Model” or “The Equality Model” and other countries around the world like Norway, Iceland and France have adopted similar laws in hopes of framing prostitution as a systemic gender issue, not just a transactional one. And the goal of the law is to shrink demand for prostitution, not punish those who are selling it.

The framework for the law is based on four pillars: prosecuting clients, decriminalizing sellers, offering exit support, and shifting public attitudes. But it isn’t quite clear just how effective the law has been. Some argue it has reduced the purchase of sex while others claim it has simply driven prostitution into hiding.

What is clear is that Sweden is considering applying the same laws to purchasing online sexual content, including sites like OnlyFans. If passed, this new law would extend criminal liability to these sites. And desire to regulate the commerical sex industry in a digital space is sparking a raging debate about surveillance, self-expression and the long-term viability of online sex work.

Despite OnlyFans and similar platforms claiming to be creator-friendly, Swedish critics say that sites like OnlyFans can create economic pressure that leads to coercion. In other words, the Swedish lawmakers think that the draw of the millions to be made on OnlyFans should be illegal.

These lawmakers also claim this isn’t about censorship, as critics claim, but instead that it’s similar to that original law: the country simply wants to reduce demand and protect the vulnerable.

If this law is passed, it would completely challenge the concept that digital sex work is different than traditional prostitution. And, lawmakers claim, and, that it would put public values ahead of profit.

Swedish OnlyFans stars are speaking up about the proposed law, arguing that there are more important industries to be regulated, especially if the argument is a moral one. Gambling companies, hedge funds, and arms industries are just a few of the companies these digital sex workers argue are worse than OnlyFans.

Some Reddit users are weighing in on the proposed law.

“There are a hell of a lot of problems with the porn industry and people being exploited, but OnlyFans and similar platforms where people can provide their own material without getting involved with the porn industry as a whole are by far the least problematic form by a wide margin.

Sweden also has a long history of producing professional (well, sort of) porn—should that part of the industry also be banned, or is it okay? Now, I admittedly haven’t kept up with anything made in Sweden since Ridskolan, but hypothetically, there must still be some Swedish-produced “professional” porn somewhere. What do you do to handle that?”

Another added:

“I’m not really into the porn industry or whatever, but I find this situation pretty funny to follow.

One side thinks women don’t have the right to their own bodies and therefore the state should decide what they can do with their bodies, another side doesn’t want men to have the right to see women’s naked bodies, especially when the bodies the men want to see aren’t heavily overweight and belong to a 50+ woman. A third side thinks men can’t control themselves if they see scantily clad women and therefore all women should wear a burka.

Funny how all 3 sides end up deciding how adult women aren’t allowed to choose to live out their sexuality with other consenting adults in a safe way.”

While it’s easy to see why Sweden may be considering the law, it’s always clear that this kind of law would hurt many people that it’s claiming to want to protect.