I must have misunderstood you. What's the point you are making here?
> Since it is practically impossible to confirm if a given sex worker is participating under duress or not, especially when it occurs "remotely" as in this OnlyFans situation, I would say it is always unethical to purchase such services
I agree that ethics and law do not coincide in all circumstances, and sometimes what is lawful may not necessarily be ethical. However, in the situation you described, prudence is what you should aim at, and understanding where and how trafficking can arise in your area or community should be your priority. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater by demonizing sex work entirely because of its susceptibility to trafficking is not only extreme, but risks sacrificing people's freedom to choose their work based on events that they cannot possibly control.
This topic is much more complex than that, but that's one side of it at least.
> Since it is practically impossible to confirm if a given sex worker is participating under duress or not, especially when it occurs "remotely" as in this OnlyFans situation, I would say it is always unethical to purchase such services
I agree that ethics and law do not coincide in all circumstances, and sometimes what is lawful may not necessarily be ethical. However, in the situation you described, prudence is what you should aim at, and understanding where and how trafficking can arise in your area or community should be your priority. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater by demonizing sex work entirely because of its susceptibility to trafficking is not only extreme, but risks sacrificing people's freedom to choose their work based on events that they cannot possibly control.
This topic is much more complex than that, but that's one side of it at least.